Maria Sharapova returned to competitive tennis this week after her 14-month doping suspension. Her first tournament back was the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix in Stuttgart, Germany, and she won her first three matches before losing in the semifinals.
Since her ranking wasn't protected during her suspension, Sharapova needed a wild card to get into the tournament, which will be the case at a number of events until she earns enough points to get her ranking back up. So, basically, her participation in tournaments is up to the organizers' discretion. And seeing as she's one of the biggest names in women's tennis, you can easily see why they'd want her in their tournaments.
This has generated a lot of resentment among other players. Eugenie Bouchard called her a "cheater," and she's just one of the many players that's spoken out against Sharapova. Angelique Kerber, Caroline Wozniacki, Roberta Vinci and Agnieszka Radwanska have also expressed their feelings on her return to the tour. Some feel she shouldn't be playing and there are probably those like Bouchard who will always look at her in a different way.
I'd imagine some of the unhappiness comes from the fact that she hasn't "earned" her way into Stuttgart and the other tournaments she's entered. Here's the thing, though, if she doesn't get wild cards, she can't enter tournaments. And if she can't enter tournaments, how's she supposed to get her ranking back up?!
Whatever you think about her or her suspension, Sharapova served her suspension and is completely entitled the opportunity to resume her career. Just like a player returning from injury would. If she needs a wild card to enter a tournament, so be it. Tournaments have wild cards for a reason, and they're allowed to give them to whoever they want for whatever reason. And it's not like the Wimbledon wild cards that go to all those British players that get blown out in the first round. This is Maria Freakin' Sharapova we're talking about!
There's another element of Sharapova's return that needs to be considered, too. She's a major draw. As evidence by the sellout for the first round of a mid-level tournament on a Tuesday in April. With all due respect to Kerber, who's No. 1 in the world, and Wozniacki (one of my favorite players) and the others, none of them are Maria Sharapova. And the WTA needs Maria Sharapova right now.
If you were to ask any casual sports fan to name an active women's tennis player, you're likely to get one of two names--Serena Williams or Maria Sharapova. And Serena's going to miss the rest of 2017 because she's pregnant. Her absence coincides with Sharapova's return, which is fortunate for the WTA. Because they really couldn't afford to be without both of their two biggest stars for an extended period. Especially at a time when men's tennis is thriving.
So, whether or not you agree with it, it makes total sense to give Maria Sharapova wild cards, at least right now. She's important for the game. Her legions of fans will come to tournaments and watch her play. TV networks (from all over the world) will be there to cover her return, bringing increased attention to these smaller events. (How many people would've even known there was a WTA tournament in Stuttgart this week if Sharapova wasn't playing in it?)
And you know something else? Maria Sharapova's a star for a reason. She isn't famous just because she's a tall, gorgeous Russian. She won Wimbledon at 17 and has a career grand slam, as well as an Olympic silver medal from 2012. When healthy, her ranking has consistently been in the top 10, and there's no reason to believe it won't be again. In fact, being forced to take more than a year off might've been the best thing for her now 30-year-old body. This break could've been a blessing in disguise. It might've lengthened her career.
With the WTA still looking for its next breakout star, the possibility of Maria Sharapova playing a few more things is definitely a good thing. Just like her returning to the game is. Like her or not, agree with it or not, Maria Sharapova returning is exactly what women's tennis needed right now. One of the biggest names in the game is back. And that's something worth embracing.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Friday, April 28, 2017
Who's Your Target Audience?
I read an interesting article the other day about baseball's pace of play "problem" that Commissioner Rob Manfred has been obsessed with ever since taking office. We've already seen some of Manfred's pace of play initiatives put into place this season, and we're likely going to see more next year. He just can't get over the fact that people consider baseball to be "too slow." The fact that the people who make those complaints don't identify as baseball fans doesn't seem to be relevant to him, either.
It reminded me of something I saw a month or two ago about McDonald's. After years of having "healthy" options on its menu, McDonald's has decided to drop them and focus on its traditional choices. Why? Because people who want to eat healthy don't go to McDonald's and people who eat at McDonald's don't want "healthy" options. With that in mind, McDonald's made the wise decision to give their customers what they want and not try to bring in people they're probably not going to get anyway.
There are a lot of similarities to what happened at McDonald's with the argument that Jayson Stark made in his last ESPN.com article (still shocked about the number of people, and some of the big names, let go in ESPN's latest round of layoffs). Baseball fans don't think the game is too slow. And the people who do think baseball is too slow aren't watching the games anyway. So which one do you cater to?
The answer to that question should be an easy one. Except to Rob Manfred. Manfred's not concerned with the fans in the ballpark. All he hears is the criticism from the armchair quarterbacks. Those that might not watch the game even if they thought it was a "reasonable" length. And if they are watching the game, they're not watching the whole thing (which, by the way, is OK).
Everyone loves to point out that, with the notable exception of last year, the World Series ratings are on a steady downward trend. There are a number of reasons for that, with the start time being one of the primary ones. World Series games start at 5:00 Pacific (when people are just getting home from work) and end around midnight Eastern (when people are either getting for or already in bed). There's also a lot more for people to watch. The World Series isn't going to get the monster ratings it once did. Yet it still does very well in comparison. And you've still got those people who are loyal to their team and are going to watch the game every night, regardless of how long it is.
Manfred is in a tough spot, though. Because even those who do describe themselves as baseball fans think the game moves slower on TV than it does at the stadium. I can tell you why, too. Commercials. At the stadium, the game isn't interrupted by two and a half minutes of commercials every half inning and every pitching change. But when you're at home and they call on the lefty reliever in the seventh inning of a 5-4 game, you're getting a commercial as he comes in, then another at the next pitching change. That's a lot of commercials surrounding not a lot of action. I can't blame people for being frustrated about that.
Fans in the ballpark don't care about any of that stuff. There's so much to do at Major League stadiums these days that you don't even need to necessarily watch the game. But you can do that, too, if you want. And if you're at the stadium, you're going to enjoy the experience. That's something Rob Manfred needs to be careful he doesn't spoil just so he can appease the people who view baseball games as nothing more than television programs. Although, as MLB correctly noted, teams play half their games on the road, and most people don't go to every home game, either, so they're still watching a majority of the season on TV.
That's not to say there aren't things that can improve both experiences. Because he is right about one thing. Whether it's in the stadium or on TV, games can definitely drag. Although, I think it's important to make the distinction between pace of game and length of game. A thrilling, back-and-forth 9-8 game that takes four hours can have you on the edge of your seat much more than a 6-2 snoozer with 11 pitching changes that takes three and a half. And who doesn't love the 15-16 inning marathon that takes five hours plus and you've got middle infielders pitching at 1:00 in the morning? (I remember one time the Yankees were playing in Seattle on a Saturday, so I watched the Met game at 1:00, and the Met game was so long that I watched the end of it after watching the entire Yankee game!)
My proposals, which I've mentioned before, include limiting the number of throws a pitcher can make to first base and putting some sort of restriction on the frequency of mound visits (Omar Vizquel and Yadi Molina were out there every damn pitch during the WBC!). It's that stuff that kills the flow more than anything else.
For the most part, fans don't care how long the game is. For a day game, you're making a day of it. For a night game, you're coming from work and if it gets too late and you have to leave, so be it. The point is you've still got people buying tickets to both Major League and Triple A games at record rates, so they've got to be doing something right. So why mess with it?
It reminded me of something I saw a month or two ago about McDonald's. After years of having "healthy" options on its menu, McDonald's has decided to drop them and focus on its traditional choices. Why? Because people who want to eat healthy don't go to McDonald's and people who eat at McDonald's don't want "healthy" options. With that in mind, McDonald's made the wise decision to give their customers what they want and not try to bring in people they're probably not going to get anyway.
There are a lot of similarities to what happened at McDonald's with the argument that Jayson Stark made in his last ESPN.com article (still shocked about the number of people, and some of the big names, let go in ESPN's latest round of layoffs). Baseball fans don't think the game is too slow. And the people who do think baseball is too slow aren't watching the games anyway. So which one do you cater to?
The answer to that question should be an easy one. Except to Rob Manfred. Manfred's not concerned with the fans in the ballpark. All he hears is the criticism from the armchair quarterbacks. Those that might not watch the game even if they thought it was a "reasonable" length. And if they are watching the game, they're not watching the whole thing (which, by the way, is OK).
Everyone loves to point out that, with the notable exception of last year, the World Series ratings are on a steady downward trend. There are a number of reasons for that, with the start time being one of the primary ones. World Series games start at 5:00 Pacific (when people are just getting home from work) and end around midnight Eastern (when people are either getting for or already in bed). There's also a lot more for people to watch. The World Series isn't going to get the monster ratings it once did. Yet it still does very well in comparison. And you've still got those people who are loyal to their team and are going to watch the game every night, regardless of how long it is.
Manfred is in a tough spot, though. Because even those who do describe themselves as baseball fans think the game moves slower on TV than it does at the stadium. I can tell you why, too. Commercials. At the stadium, the game isn't interrupted by two and a half minutes of commercials every half inning and every pitching change. But when you're at home and they call on the lefty reliever in the seventh inning of a 5-4 game, you're getting a commercial as he comes in, then another at the next pitching change. That's a lot of commercials surrounding not a lot of action. I can't blame people for being frustrated about that.
Fans in the ballpark don't care about any of that stuff. There's so much to do at Major League stadiums these days that you don't even need to necessarily watch the game. But you can do that, too, if you want. And if you're at the stadium, you're going to enjoy the experience. That's something Rob Manfred needs to be careful he doesn't spoil just so he can appease the people who view baseball games as nothing more than television programs. Although, as MLB correctly noted, teams play half their games on the road, and most people don't go to every home game, either, so they're still watching a majority of the season on TV.
That's not to say there aren't things that can improve both experiences. Because he is right about one thing. Whether it's in the stadium or on TV, games can definitely drag. Although, I think it's important to make the distinction between pace of game and length of game. A thrilling, back-and-forth 9-8 game that takes four hours can have you on the edge of your seat much more than a 6-2 snoozer with 11 pitching changes that takes three and a half. And who doesn't love the 15-16 inning marathon that takes five hours plus and you've got middle infielders pitching at 1:00 in the morning? (I remember one time the Yankees were playing in Seattle on a Saturday, so I watched the Met game at 1:00, and the Met game was so long that I watched the end of it after watching the entire Yankee game!)
My proposals, which I've mentioned before, include limiting the number of throws a pitcher can make to first base and putting some sort of restriction on the frequency of mound visits (Omar Vizquel and Yadi Molina were out there every damn pitch during the WBC!). It's that stuff that kills the flow more than anything else.
For the most part, fans don't care how long the game is. For a day game, you're making a day of it. For a night game, you're coming from work and if it gets too late and you have to leave, so be it. The point is you've still got people buying tickets to both Major League and Triple A games at record rates, so they've got to be doing something right. So why mess with it?
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Stanley Cup Playoffs, Round 2
After a few days off, the Stanley Cup Playoffs are set to start back up with Round 2. The first round set a record for overtime games in a single playoff round, but overall didn't give us many surprises. There was only one real surprise result--Predators over Blackhawks, but that was more because of how bad Chicago played than anything else. Not to take anything away from Nashville, but seeing the Blackhawks play that terribly in a playoff series was shocking. They scored three goals in the entire series! You're not gonna win like that.
My biggest takeaway from round one is how evenly-matched a lot of these teams really are. It wasn't just the overtimes, either. It was all the one-goal games across all eight series. Toronto easily could've upset Washington, and Calgary didn't really deserve to get swept with how competitive they really were against the Ducks (who, by the way, looked really freakin' good!). Yet, amazingly, there were no Game 7's. So we've at least got that to look forward to.
If the first round was that tight, I can only imagine how competitive round two is going to be. Especially since you've got the two best teams in the league squaring off in the marquee series (which should be the Conference Final, but we've been over that already).
And, other than Pittsburgh, you've got a bunch of teams who've been waiting a while for this. The Rangers lost to the Kings in 2014, but it's been 10 years for Anaheim and Ottawa, 11 for Edmonton, 20 for Washington, 47 for St. Louis and forever for Nashville. So, especially in the West, somebody's Stanley Cup drought is going to end. The chances of us seeing a team get its name etched on the Cup is actually pretty good, too. Half of the remaining teams have never won it.
It's almost a complete changing of the guard in the West, in fact. The Chicago-LA rotation is officially over. The Kings fired their coach after missing the playoffs for the second time in three years, while the Blackhawks had to make someone the fall guy after their second straight first-round exit, so their top assistant got the boot. And, with last year's Western Conference champion San Jose also getting knocked out in the first round, we'll see a different Western Conference champion for the first time since the 2011 Canucks.
But first, the East, where the Rangers continue their tour of Canada and the Capitals look to avenge their loss to the Penguins last year.
Senators-Rangers: The Rangers got what they wanted with the Montreal matchup, and now they have another favorable matchup against the Senators. Ottawa proved to be super resilient in the Boston series, but you have to wonder how much all of those overtimes took out of them. Especially with the amount of ice time Erik Karlsson logged in that series. The fact that they're not starting until Thursday definitely benefits Ottawa (the Senators' legs really would've been dead had they played a Game 7). However, the Rangers' outstanding road record proved beneficial against Montreal, and it will likely come into play again. They made some terrific adjustments after going down 2-1 to win the last three games against the Canadiens. The Canadiens are better than the Senators. Rangers in six.
Capitals-Penguins: Well, Washington. Here's your chance. Here's your chance to get people to finally stop saying that you're "overrated" or that you're "chokers" or that you're "a really good regular season team" (which I say about both the Capitals and the Texas Rangers all the time). You're playing the defending champs with a chance to avenge your loss to them last year. Except you barely beat the Leafs while the Penguins were busy blowing right by a Blue Jackets team that deserved a better fate. Anyway, Washington has the better goalie, and they'll need Holtby to be just as important as Ovechkin and Backstrom. Because the Penguins will look to score enough to overcome their weakness in goal. And Pittsburgh just has too much offensive talent. Penguins in six.
Now on to the West, where, after the first round, I have to say Anaheim looks like they're head and shoulders above the rest. But if the Predators team that played in the first round shows up, we just might see those preseason projections come true after all.
Blues-Predators: This is probably the toughest matchup to predict, and this is where I think we'll see our first Game 7 of the playoffs. St. Louis looked really good against Minnesota and now gets home ice advantage for this one. Except I don't think the Blues are the better team. The Predators team that played against the Blackhawks is the one a lot of people were expecting to see for most of the season. But the question is: Can they keep it up? That Blackhawks series finished early, so they've been sitting around for a while. Was that good or bad? I think we'll find out early. Regardless, they're good enough to shake off any rust they might have from that break. And we've seen plenty of teams ride a hot goalie through the playoffs time and again. Pekka Rinne's a hot goalie right now. Predators in seven.
Ducks-Oilers: Oh, man, this is gonna be a good one. It went down to the last day of the season for these two to figure out which one would win the division title. The Ducks ended up claiming the Pacific, and then they looked like world beaters in the first round against Calgary. The Oilers were impressive in the first round, too, which is why I'm really expecting to be entertained by this series. I think Edmonton's a year or two away, though. Anaheim has been building towards this for the last several years, and this really does seem like their best shot at the Cup. They still have that Game 7 thing hanging over their heads, but they don't have to worry about losing a Game 7 if the series is over before then. And I think it will be. Ducks in six.
My biggest takeaway from round one is how evenly-matched a lot of these teams really are. It wasn't just the overtimes, either. It was all the one-goal games across all eight series. Toronto easily could've upset Washington, and Calgary didn't really deserve to get swept with how competitive they really were against the Ducks (who, by the way, looked really freakin' good!). Yet, amazingly, there were no Game 7's. So we've at least got that to look forward to.
If the first round was that tight, I can only imagine how competitive round two is going to be. Especially since you've got the two best teams in the league squaring off in the marquee series (which should be the Conference Final, but we've been over that already).
And, other than Pittsburgh, you've got a bunch of teams who've been waiting a while for this. The Rangers lost to the Kings in 2014, but it's been 10 years for Anaheim and Ottawa, 11 for Edmonton, 20 for Washington, 47 for St. Louis and forever for Nashville. So, especially in the West, somebody's Stanley Cup drought is going to end. The chances of us seeing a team get its name etched on the Cup is actually pretty good, too. Half of the remaining teams have never won it.
It's almost a complete changing of the guard in the West, in fact. The Chicago-LA rotation is officially over. The Kings fired their coach after missing the playoffs for the second time in three years, while the Blackhawks had to make someone the fall guy after their second straight first-round exit, so their top assistant got the boot. And, with last year's Western Conference champion San Jose also getting knocked out in the first round, we'll see a different Western Conference champion for the first time since the 2011 Canucks.
But first, the East, where the Rangers continue their tour of Canada and the Capitals look to avenge their loss to the Penguins last year.
Senators-Rangers: The Rangers got what they wanted with the Montreal matchup, and now they have another favorable matchup against the Senators. Ottawa proved to be super resilient in the Boston series, but you have to wonder how much all of those overtimes took out of them. Especially with the amount of ice time Erik Karlsson logged in that series. The fact that they're not starting until Thursday definitely benefits Ottawa (the Senators' legs really would've been dead had they played a Game 7). However, the Rangers' outstanding road record proved beneficial against Montreal, and it will likely come into play again. They made some terrific adjustments after going down 2-1 to win the last three games against the Canadiens. The Canadiens are better than the Senators. Rangers in six.
Capitals-Penguins: Well, Washington. Here's your chance. Here's your chance to get people to finally stop saying that you're "overrated" or that you're "chokers" or that you're "a really good regular season team" (which I say about both the Capitals and the Texas Rangers all the time). You're playing the defending champs with a chance to avenge your loss to them last year. Except you barely beat the Leafs while the Penguins were busy blowing right by a Blue Jackets team that deserved a better fate. Anyway, Washington has the better goalie, and they'll need Holtby to be just as important as Ovechkin and Backstrom. Because the Penguins will look to score enough to overcome their weakness in goal. And Pittsburgh just has too much offensive talent. Penguins in six.
Now on to the West, where, after the first round, I have to say Anaheim looks like they're head and shoulders above the rest. But if the Predators team that played in the first round shows up, we just might see those preseason projections come true after all.
Blues-Predators: This is probably the toughest matchup to predict, and this is where I think we'll see our first Game 7 of the playoffs. St. Louis looked really good against Minnesota and now gets home ice advantage for this one. Except I don't think the Blues are the better team. The Predators team that played against the Blackhawks is the one a lot of people were expecting to see for most of the season. But the question is: Can they keep it up? That Blackhawks series finished early, so they've been sitting around for a while. Was that good or bad? I think we'll find out early. Regardless, they're good enough to shake off any rust they might have from that break. And we've seen plenty of teams ride a hot goalie through the playoffs time and again. Pekka Rinne's a hot goalie right now. Predators in seven.
Ducks-Oilers: Oh, man, this is gonna be a good one. It went down to the last day of the season for these two to figure out which one would win the division title. The Ducks ended up claiming the Pacific, and then they looked like world beaters in the first round against Calgary. The Oilers were impressive in the first round, too, which is why I'm really expecting to be entertained by this series. I think Edmonton's a year or two away, though. Anaheim has been building towards this for the last several years, and this really does seem like their best shot at the Cup. They still have that Game 7 thing hanging over their heads, but they don't have to worry about losing a Game 7 if the series is over before then. And I think it will be. Ducks in six.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Change For the Sake of Change
As a part of the Olympic reforms known as "Agenda 2020," the Olympic program was shifted from a sport-based program to an event-based program. We've already seen the effects of this change, as five sports have been added for the 2020 Tokyo Games. Those likely aren't the only changes to the Olympic program we'll see in Tokyo, though. A number of international federations have proposed adding new events within their sport or dropping one event and replacing it with another.
In fact, MOST of the international federations have made proposals to have additional gold medals awarded in their sport at the Tokyo Games. None of this has been officially confirmed, but if the information that's been leaked out is correct, 15 different federations have made requests. Some are reasonable in what they're asking. For example, table tennis wants mixed doubles and some of the sports with weight classes have asked for an extra one or two. While others are being incredibly ambitious. FINA has asked for 13 new events, including eight in swimming alone.
Some of these proposed changes make a lot of sense. They had previously announced even before the end of the Rio Games that in whitewater canoeing, the men's doubles canoe would be replaced by a women's singles canoe, giving them two men's and two women's events (a kayak singles and a canoe singles in each). Likewise, the flatwater canoe/kayak program has also been changed to add some women's events. They're also changing the program in track cycling so that the men's and women's events are equal.
There are other proposed new events that don't just seem logical, they seem like they'd be great additions to the Olympic program. The triathlon mixed relay, which I think is likely to pass, is an example of this. High diving also sounds like an excellent addition. And just think of those picturesque views of the host city that high diving would produce! Three-on-three basketball also seems likely to get approved, although I'm lukewarm on that one (do you really need a 5x5 version and a 3x3 version of the same sport?).
Then there are the events like mixed doubles table tennis, which is harmless enough. It adds a gold medal for China, but I think most people would agree that they wouldn't really have a problem with mixed doubles table tennis. It doesn't add any athletes, either, which is important since they're trying to still keep the athlete count around 10,500. Likewise, the eight additional swimming events (which, if approved, would make the programs at the Olympics and World Championships identical) wouldn't add any athletes. Same thing with a bunch of proposed mixed team events.
That's really one of the IOC's big goals here. Ideally, they want the Olympic program to be a 50-50 split between men's and women's events. In fact, Olympic Agenda 2020 directly mentions the goal to "foster gender equality" by "encouraging the inclusion of mixed-gender team events." After all, they've seen success with mixed team events/relays in the past, and we're starting to see them pop up more and more at the various World Championships.
I've seen mixed gender team events that do work. They have the mixed freestyle and medley relays at the swimming World Championships, and the track & field World Relays just concluded with a scintillating mixed 4x400 meter relay that was won by the host Bahamas. And, I'm not sure if it's been proposed or not, but mixed synchronized diving seems like it could be cool. And I've already mentioned the triathlon relay.
But some of the mixed gender proposals for Tokyo just seem forced. They've proposed mixed synchronized swimming. Along with rhythmic gymnastics, synchronized swimming is one of two Olympic sports in which only women participate. Does that mean we want to watch male synchronized swimmers, though? Likewise, do we need a mixed race walking relay?
The Olympics are desperately trying to appeal to youngsters, and events like that aren't the way to do it. There are also plenty of people within some of the international federations that aren't happy about the proposed new events (or, more specifically, the events that would be dropped and replaced with the new ones). A high-ranking official with the International Sport Shooting Federation has spoken out about his sport's changes, and the 50 kilometer race walk, which has been endangered for a while, was saved after a vigorous social media campaign by the race walkers themselves.
Thankfully, most of these proposals probably won't go through. They want to keep the number of total events roughly around 310, and there were 306 in Rio. With the five new sports coming on the program, that's already going to bring it over 310. I have no doubt that we will see some of them, though. And not just the good ones like high diving and the triathlon mixed relay.
Change isn't a bad thing, and I applaud the IOC for it's efforts to keep the Olympic program fresh and relevant. But those changes need to make sense. And that's not what this is. A lot of this would be change for the sake of change. I hope they realize that when they get together and decide on the program for Tokyo 2020.
In fact, MOST of the international federations have made proposals to have additional gold medals awarded in their sport at the Tokyo Games. None of this has been officially confirmed, but if the information that's been leaked out is correct, 15 different federations have made requests. Some are reasonable in what they're asking. For example, table tennis wants mixed doubles and some of the sports with weight classes have asked for an extra one or two. While others are being incredibly ambitious. FINA has asked for 13 new events, including eight in swimming alone.
Some of these proposed changes make a lot of sense. They had previously announced even before the end of the Rio Games that in whitewater canoeing, the men's doubles canoe would be replaced by a women's singles canoe, giving them two men's and two women's events (a kayak singles and a canoe singles in each). Likewise, the flatwater canoe/kayak program has also been changed to add some women's events. They're also changing the program in track cycling so that the men's and women's events are equal.
There are other proposed new events that don't just seem logical, they seem like they'd be great additions to the Olympic program. The triathlon mixed relay, which I think is likely to pass, is an example of this. High diving also sounds like an excellent addition. And just think of those picturesque views of the host city that high diving would produce! Three-on-three basketball also seems likely to get approved, although I'm lukewarm on that one (do you really need a 5x5 version and a 3x3 version of the same sport?).
Then there are the events like mixed doubles table tennis, which is harmless enough. It adds a gold medal for China, but I think most people would agree that they wouldn't really have a problem with mixed doubles table tennis. It doesn't add any athletes, either, which is important since they're trying to still keep the athlete count around 10,500. Likewise, the eight additional swimming events (which, if approved, would make the programs at the Olympics and World Championships identical) wouldn't add any athletes. Same thing with a bunch of proposed mixed team events.
That's really one of the IOC's big goals here. Ideally, they want the Olympic program to be a 50-50 split between men's and women's events. In fact, Olympic Agenda 2020 directly mentions the goal to "foster gender equality" by "encouraging the inclusion of mixed-gender team events." After all, they've seen success with mixed team events/relays in the past, and we're starting to see them pop up more and more at the various World Championships.
I've seen mixed gender team events that do work. They have the mixed freestyle and medley relays at the swimming World Championships, and the track & field World Relays just concluded with a scintillating mixed 4x400 meter relay that was won by the host Bahamas. And, I'm not sure if it's been proposed or not, but mixed synchronized diving seems like it could be cool. And I've already mentioned the triathlon relay.
But some of the mixed gender proposals for Tokyo just seem forced. They've proposed mixed synchronized swimming. Along with rhythmic gymnastics, synchronized swimming is one of two Olympic sports in which only women participate. Does that mean we want to watch male synchronized swimmers, though? Likewise, do we need a mixed race walking relay?
The Olympics are desperately trying to appeal to youngsters, and events like that aren't the way to do it. There are also plenty of people within some of the international federations that aren't happy about the proposed new events (or, more specifically, the events that would be dropped and replaced with the new ones). A high-ranking official with the International Sport Shooting Federation has spoken out about his sport's changes, and the 50 kilometer race walk, which has been endangered for a while, was saved after a vigorous social media campaign by the race walkers themselves.
Thankfully, most of these proposals probably won't go through. They want to keep the number of total events roughly around 310, and there were 306 in Rio. With the five new sports coming on the program, that's already going to bring it over 310. I have no doubt that we will see some of them, though. And not just the good ones like high diving and the triathlon mixed relay.
Change isn't a bad thing, and I applaud the IOC for it's efforts to keep the Olympic program fresh and relevant. But those changes need to make sense. And that's not what this is. A lot of this would be change for the sake of change. I hope they realize that when they get together and decide on the program for Tokyo 2020.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
The Whereabouts Rule
Brianna Rollins, the Olympic gold medalist in the 100 meter hurdles, was handed a one-year doping suspension the other day. Here's the kicker, though. Rollins wasn't suspended for actually doing. Both the IAAF and USADA acknowledged this during her appeal. But she was suspended anyway, albeit for only one year instead of two. For missing three doping tests.
Before I get started, let me be really clear about something. This isn't like the drug test famously missed by Greek athletes Katerina Thanou and Kostas Kenteris right before the Athens Olympics. They intentionally missed a test (that they were almost certainly going to fail), then made up a very elaborate story about a motorcycle accident that nobody bought as their "explanation."
Rollins has admitted her mistake and accepted the suspension, which means she'll miss this summer's World Championships. She's also had her results voided since September 27 (the date of her last missed test), which is somewhat irrevelant, seeing as she hasn't competed since the Olympic final. And she'll also keep her gold medal from Rio.
She was suspended for violating the so-called "whereabouts" rule. Rollins missed one test in April and two a week apart in September. The first one was because she was traveling to a meet. She said she was going to be in California, but was on her way to Iowa for the Drake Relays. She was also traveling when she had her second and third missed tests. For the first one, she was on her way to the White House to meet President Obama. The other was because she was on her way to her hometown for "Brianna Rollins Day."
Is it just me, or do these "violations" sound incredibly dumb? She wasn't trying to avoid the testers. Any reasonable person can see that. Rollins admitted her negligence and misunderstanding of the process in her appeal. She assumed that her entry for the Drake Relays (which obviously required her traveling to Iowa) superseded her previous whereabouts entry. It did not. She had to go in and manually update it.
I'm not gonna make an excuse for her on the "Brianna Rollins Day" thing, but the White House one is totally ridiculous. The USOC and USADA obviously knew about that event was taking place. And if all Olympic gold medalists from Rio were being honored, why wouldn't she be there? In that situation, it shouldn't be incumbent upon the athlete to tell an organization that they aren't going to be at home because they'll be at that organization's event instead.
My real problem here is the whole whereabouts rule in the first place. The USADA insists that regular out-of-competition is the only way to ensure clean sport (although, that's always the case, just check out Russia). As a result, they require all athletes in the drug testing system to provide a one-hour window each day when they'll be available for a drug test. If they're traveling, they have to report it. If they have a change of plans, they need to let them know. That's where Brianna Rollins got herself into trouble.
But the fact that she's now going to be labeled as a "drug cheat" like so many others who actually are is really unsettling. Especially because the reason she was suspended is so stupid. I get it. A missed test equals a positive test, and three missed tests in the same 12-month period results in a suspension. The rules are the rules, and the rules are pretty clear. But these particular rules seem particularly invasive.
It seems like such a huge invasion of privacy that athletes need to report where they're going to be every day, just so drug-testers (aka "Big Brother") can check up on them. I forget who it was, but there was a female athlete a few years ago who told a story about when she was at a nice, fancy event, then had to go find a bathroom just so she could provide the tester with a sample then and there. And I've really got a problem with that.
The whole idea that athletes need to make themselves available anytime anywhere for a random drug test must be very uncomfortable. It comes with the territory, so they know what they're signing up for, but they should still be allowed to live their lives. I don't have to tell people where I'm going to be 24-7. Frankly, the only people that should have to are those who've been ordered to by a judge.
Random drug testing is important. I'm not denying that. And the randomness is an equally important part of the process. If the athletes get too much notice, that gives the dirty ones a chance to try and find a way to beat it, which we certainly don't want. But there needs to be a better solution than the current system, if only to prevent situations like what happened to Brianna Rollins from happening again.
So what is that solution? Maybe you do it the way the NCAA does. They get a few hours' "notice" and need to provide a sample by whatever time. It's then incumbent on the athlete to figure out where they can do it that's accredited within that time frame. If they don't do it or don't get it done in time, it counts as a positive.
That way is fair for everyone, and it still puts the burden on the athlete. We all want clean sport. But we should also want a sport where the people getting suspended for doping are the ones that are actually doping. Not those who we know aren't. Because there's a big difference between missing a test and failing one.
Before I get started, let me be really clear about something. This isn't like the drug test famously missed by Greek athletes Katerina Thanou and Kostas Kenteris right before the Athens Olympics. They intentionally missed a test (that they were almost certainly going to fail), then made up a very elaborate story about a motorcycle accident that nobody bought as their "explanation."
Rollins has admitted her mistake and accepted the suspension, which means she'll miss this summer's World Championships. She's also had her results voided since September 27 (the date of her last missed test), which is somewhat irrevelant, seeing as she hasn't competed since the Olympic final. And she'll also keep her gold medal from Rio.
She was suspended for violating the so-called "whereabouts" rule. Rollins missed one test in April and two a week apart in September. The first one was because she was traveling to a meet. She said she was going to be in California, but was on her way to Iowa for the Drake Relays. She was also traveling when she had her second and third missed tests. For the first one, she was on her way to the White House to meet President Obama. The other was because she was on her way to her hometown for "Brianna Rollins Day."
Is it just me, or do these "violations" sound incredibly dumb? She wasn't trying to avoid the testers. Any reasonable person can see that. Rollins admitted her negligence and misunderstanding of the process in her appeal. She assumed that her entry for the Drake Relays (which obviously required her traveling to Iowa) superseded her previous whereabouts entry. It did not. She had to go in and manually update it.
I'm not gonna make an excuse for her on the "Brianna Rollins Day" thing, but the White House one is totally ridiculous. The USOC and USADA obviously knew about that event was taking place. And if all Olympic gold medalists from Rio were being honored, why wouldn't she be there? In that situation, it shouldn't be incumbent upon the athlete to tell an organization that they aren't going to be at home because they'll be at that organization's event instead.
My real problem here is the whole whereabouts rule in the first place. The USADA insists that regular out-of-competition is the only way to ensure clean sport (although, that's always the case, just check out Russia). As a result, they require all athletes in the drug testing system to provide a one-hour window each day when they'll be available for a drug test. If they're traveling, they have to report it. If they have a change of plans, they need to let them know. That's where Brianna Rollins got herself into trouble.
But the fact that she's now going to be labeled as a "drug cheat" like so many others who actually are is really unsettling. Especially because the reason she was suspended is so stupid. I get it. A missed test equals a positive test, and three missed tests in the same 12-month period results in a suspension. The rules are the rules, and the rules are pretty clear. But these particular rules seem particularly invasive.
It seems like such a huge invasion of privacy that athletes need to report where they're going to be every day, just so drug-testers (aka "Big Brother") can check up on them. I forget who it was, but there was a female athlete a few years ago who told a story about when she was at a nice, fancy event, then had to go find a bathroom just so she could provide the tester with a sample then and there. And I've really got a problem with that.
The whole idea that athletes need to make themselves available anytime anywhere for a random drug test must be very uncomfortable. It comes with the territory, so they know what they're signing up for, but they should still be allowed to live their lives. I don't have to tell people where I'm going to be 24-7. Frankly, the only people that should have to are those who've been ordered to by a judge.
Random drug testing is important. I'm not denying that. And the randomness is an equally important part of the process. If the athletes get too much notice, that gives the dirty ones a chance to try and find a way to beat it, which we certainly don't want. But there needs to be a better solution than the current system, if only to prevent situations like what happened to Brianna Rollins from happening again.
So what is that solution? Maybe you do it the way the NCAA does. They get a few hours' "notice" and need to provide a sample by whatever time. It's then incumbent on the athlete to figure out where they can do it that's accredited within that time frame. If they don't do it or don't get it done in time, it counts as a positive.
That way is fair for everyone, and it still puts the burden on the athlete. We all want clean sport. But we should also want a sport where the people getting suspended for doping are the ones that are actually doping. Not those who we know aren't. Because there's a big difference between missing a test and failing one.
Friday, April 21, 2017
NFL Schedule Breakdown
As usual, the NFL announced the schedule on the Thursday before the Draft. It's one of the days football fans look forward to the most during the offseason. You know your opponents and where immediately after the season ends, and the teams that are going to London know well in advance, but "When?" is always the big question. That and "When's the bye?" And "How many primetime games do we have?"
When I look at the NFL schedule, I look for some other things. I really don't give a crap who the Jaguars are playing in Week 4 (it's the Jets). I obviously check out the Giants' schedule, but I also look for the little quirks that you find in the NFL schedule every year.
For example, the Cowboys' Thanksgiving game this year is against the Chargers. There used to be an AFC team that played on Thanksgiving every year. Since CBS and FOX both got a game, there had to be, and the AFC teams that visited Detroit/Dallas that season knew they had a 50-50 chance. But since they started this whole "cross-flexing" thing a couple years ago, they can show NFC vs. NFC games on CBS, which has led to an absence of AFC teams on Thanksgiving. Last year Steelers-Colts was the night game, but the year before that six NFC teams played on Thanksgiving. Finally the AFC is allowed on the NFL's marquee regular season date again.
I was also interested to see how they'd handle Christmas. Christmas Eve is a Sunday, but the NFL doesn't normally play a Sunday Night game on Christmas Eve. So the solution was to put NBC's game on Saturday night, which makes complete sense. The interesting thing, though, is that the "Thursday night" game in Week 16 is an afternoon game on Christmas...involving the Pittsburgh Steelers, who play on Christmas afternoon for the second straight year.
Last year's season opener was a Super Bowl rematch between the Panthers and Broncos, and Panthers coach Ron Rivera was not happy about it. And, seeing as the Falcons are opening a new stadium that the NFL wants to showcase in primetime, it doesn't surprise me that the Super Bowl rematch was pushed until later in the season. And since the Patriots didn't really have any other worthwhile home games, the Kansas City matchup makes complete sense.
That Falcons home game, meanwhile, doesn't come until Week 2, when they host the Packers in an NFC Championship Game rematch. I figured it would be part of the Monday night doubleheader in Week 1, and I also figured it would be against New Orleans. But instead they open in Chicago and the home game against the Saints waits until a Thursday night in Week 14 (and the NFC South division games, once again, are incredibly back-loaded).
Another team playing in a new stadium this season is the Chargers, and their move up the California coast gives the NFL three shared markets. In the past, they always tried to avoid having the Giants and Jets or 49ers and Raiders playing at the same time. Except Giants-Jets is easier than Raiders-49ers or Rams-Chargers because they can play at 1:00, while staggering start times for the West Coast teams (who have to play late games at home) is much harder.
Well, it looks like the solution the NFL came up with was not to worry about it. Both LA teams are home in Week 2, and the Giants and Jets both have a 1:00 game a couple times. And, strangely enough, the Raiders and 49ers both play an early game (obviously both on the road) in Week 8.
Before cross-flexing they also had to worry about when they played their interconference opponent (which would put the game on the opposite network), which would almost certainly either be on the other's bye or be in prime time. Cross-flexing is something I still don't quite understand, and this season I'm willing to bet I'll be more confused than ever. That's because in Week 5, Jets-Browns is on FOX and Giants-Chargers is on CBS. Then again in Week 7 the two New York teams swap networks. Jets-Dolphins is on FOX so that Giants-Seahawks can be a national game on CBS (with Jim Nantz and Tony Romo!).
We're also going to see what's hopefully the final season of Thursday Night Football, which the players hate and isn't really that good. It starts with the Bengals hosting the Texans (which was the Christmas Eve night game last season) in Week 2, but CBS doesn't begin its simulcating until Bears-Packers in Week 4. CBS does have five consecutive weeks, though, after which Bills-Jets is only on NFL Network in Week 9 before NBC takes over with Seattle-Arizona in Week 10, taking it thru to the end.
Our all-division Week 17 slate is on New Year's Eve, which means the entire 2017 regular season will actually take place in 2017. And if I had to pick which one of those 16 games I think will be the one that finishes just before the ball drops, I'll tab Chiefs-Broncos and Panthers-Falcons as the early favorites.
When I look at the NFL schedule, I look for some other things. I really don't give a crap who the Jaguars are playing in Week 4 (it's the Jets). I obviously check out the Giants' schedule, but I also look for the little quirks that you find in the NFL schedule every year.
For example, the Cowboys' Thanksgiving game this year is against the Chargers. There used to be an AFC team that played on Thanksgiving every year. Since CBS and FOX both got a game, there had to be, and the AFC teams that visited Detroit/Dallas that season knew they had a 50-50 chance. But since they started this whole "cross-flexing" thing a couple years ago, they can show NFC vs. NFC games on CBS, which has led to an absence of AFC teams on Thanksgiving. Last year Steelers-Colts was the night game, but the year before that six NFC teams played on Thanksgiving. Finally the AFC is allowed on the NFL's marquee regular season date again.
I was also interested to see how they'd handle Christmas. Christmas Eve is a Sunday, but the NFL doesn't normally play a Sunday Night game on Christmas Eve. So the solution was to put NBC's game on Saturday night, which makes complete sense. The interesting thing, though, is that the "Thursday night" game in Week 16 is an afternoon game on Christmas...involving the Pittsburgh Steelers, who play on Christmas afternoon for the second straight year.
Last year's season opener was a Super Bowl rematch between the Panthers and Broncos, and Panthers coach Ron Rivera was not happy about it. And, seeing as the Falcons are opening a new stadium that the NFL wants to showcase in primetime, it doesn't surprise me that the Super Bowl rematch was pushed until later in the season. And since the Patriots didn't really have any other worthwhile home games, the Kansas City matchup makes complete sense.
That Falcons home game, meanwhile, doesn't come until Week 2, when they host the Packers in an NFC Championship Game rematch. I figured it would be part of the Monday night doubleheader in Week 1, and I also figured it would be against New Orleans. But instead they open in Chicago and the home game against the Saints waits until a Thursday night in Week 14 (and the NFC South division games, once again, are incredibly back-loaded).
Another team playing in a new stadium this season is the Chargers, and their move up the California coast gives the NFL three shared markets. In the past, they always tried to avoid having the Giants and Jets or 49ers and Raiders playing at the same time. Except Giants-Jets is easier than Raiders-49ers or Rams-Chargers because they can play at 1:00, while staggering start times for the West Coast teams (who have to play late games at home) is much harder.
Well, it looks like the solution the NFL came up with was not to worry about it. Both LA teams are home in Week 2, and the Giants and Jets both have a 1:00 game a couple times. And, strangely enough, the Raiders and 49ers both play an early game (obviously both on the road) in Week 8.
Before cross-flexing they also had to worry about when they played their interconference opponent (which would put the game on the opposite network), which would almost certainly either be on the other's bye or be in prime time. Cross-flexing is something I still don't quite understand, and this season I'm willing to bet I'll be more confused than ever. That's because in Week 5, Jets-Browns is on FOX and Giants-Chargers is on CBS. Then again in Week 7 the two New York teams swap networks. Jets-Dolphins is on FOX so that Giants-Seahawks can be a national game on CBS (with Jim Nantz and Tony Romo!).
We're also going to see what's hopefully the final season of Thursday Night Football, which the players hate and isn't really that good. It starts with the Bengals hosting the Texans (which was the Christmas Eve night game last season) in Week 2, but CBS doesn't begin its simulcating until Bears-Packers in Week 4. CBS does have five consecutive weeks, though, after which Bills-Jets is only on NFL Network in Week 9 before NBC takes over with Seattle-Arizona in Week 10, taking it thru to the end.
Our all-division Week 17 slate is on New Year's Eve, which means the entire 2017 regular season will actually take place in 2017. And if I had to pick which one of those 16 games I think will be the one that finishes just before the ball drops, I'll tab Chiefs-Broncos and Panthers-Falcons as the early favorites.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
This Ring Is Not For Sale
The Chicago Cubs have received their World Series rings, and they're absolutely stunning. Frankly, you wouldn't have expected anything less from a team that waited 108 years to win one. They went all out, putting 108 diamonds in them (for each year of the drought) and distributing 1,908 (the year of their last championship) to people at all levels of the organization, from those at the very top to the guy who operates the manual scoreboard in center field. They even had a contest where fans were able to receive authentic, genuine World Series rings.
In fact, the team has taken it a step further with some employees who aren't exactly in the same tax bracket as Jon Lester or Kris Bryant. They're going to pick up the tab for the taxes that come with such an expensive gift. In exchange, those lower-level employees have to sign an agreement that they won't sell their ring, and if they choose to do so, the club can buy it back for $1.
While most employees willingly signed this document, some people aren't too happy with this stipulation. One Cubs executive said that he thinks it's unfair that if an employee "needs to put food on the table," they should be able to sell their ring and use the money. (Although, considering how generous they were with the amount of rings that were distributed, I'm sure the Ricketts family would figure something out for those employees in those desperate financial situations.)
However, this seems like a fairly reasonable request. In fact, it's similar to the one they make you sign if you win an Oscar or the Heisman Trophy or basically any major award other than an Olympic medal. Basically, the Cubs are saying, "We gave you this gift. Don't take advantage of our generosity by turning around and selling it for your own personal gain."
I'm on the team's side here. For a number of reasons. For starters, why would anyone want to sell their World Series ring? Especially a lower-level employee. Everyone knows that the players and executives get rings. But the owners aren't required to give them to anyone. Shouldn't the fact that they value your role in the organization, however small, mean something? It's their way of saying "we couldn't have done it without you." That should mean something.
It's also worth noting here that these rings usually have the person's name on them, so there's a significant drop off in value from Anthony Rizzo's ring to some random dude who works in ticketing's ring. I'm sure there are still people who wouldn't care and would just want the Cubs World Series ring, but I wouldn't want something that was obviously intended for someone else. But that's just me.
Yes, these rings would generate quite a price on the open market. That, I think, is part of the team's rationale, too. They don't want to devalue the rings. And making them available to the highest bidder would do just that. They would also lose most of their meaning. Instead of being a reminder of the Cubs team that finally broke the drought, they would become nothing more than a rare sports collectible. These dealers have no sentimentality. They just see them as something valuable that they can make money off of.
That's exactly what the Cubs don't want. There are literally millions of Cubs fans around the world who'd kill to have the rarest of all prizes--a Cubs World Series ring. You get one, then you turn around and sell it to a memorabilia dealer? That either means you don't get it or you're just greedy. That World Series ring should be special to all 1,908 people who received one. If you don't think it's that special, you shouldn't have one.
And there's nothing that says employees can't sell their rings. The Cubs are simply trying to discourage it. If the team chooses not to buy the ring back, the employee can sell it, although the same stipulations will apply to any future owners. They also granted an exception for employees who want to pass their ring on to a family member.
Now, I'm sure most of the negative reaction coming from this is simply because it was made public. And because it's the Cubs, so people know the rings will be expensive. Some collectors have estimated that one from a team employee could go for $50,000, while one from a prominent player could fetch as much as $250,000.
But you know what? This isn't that uncommon, so it's really unfair to criticize the Cubs for trying to protect their investment. Especially when they were so generous. To so many people. All they're asking in return is that they don't take advantage of that generosity. Is that really so much to ask? I don't think so.
Besides, if Cubs fans want a World Series ring so bad, they can still get one. Jostens is selling a fan version for $10,800. And you know what, that version's probably going to look exactly the same and is a lot cheaper than buying one of the real ones in an auction. Let the people who've earned the rings keep theirs. You can still get one. You just have to go online.
In fact, the team has taken it a step further with some employees who aren't exactly in the same tax bracket as Jon Lester or Kris Bryant. They're going to pick up the tab for the taxes that come with such an expensive gift. In exchange, those lower-level employees have to sign an agreement that they won't sell their ring, and if they choose to do so, the club can buy it back for $1.
While most employees willingly signed this document, some people aren't too happy with this stipulation. One Cubs executive said that he thinks it's unfair that if an employee "needs to put food on the table," they should be able to sell their ring and use the money. (Although, considering how generous they were with the amount of rings that were distributed, I'm sure the Ricketts family would figure something out for those employees in those desperate financial situations.)
However, this seems like a fairly reasonable request. In fact, it's similar to the one they make you sign if you win an Oscar or the Heisman Trophy or basically any major award other than an Olympic medal. Basically, the Cubs are saying, "We gave you this gift. Don't take advantage of our generosity by turning around and selling it for your own personal gain."
I'm on the team's side here. For a number of reasons. For starters, why would anyone want to sell their World Series ring? Especially a lower-level employee. Everyone knows that the players and executives get rings. But the owners aren't required to give them to anyone. Shouldn't the fact that they value your role in the organization, however small, mean something? It's their way of saying "we couldn't have done it without you." That should mean something.
It's also worth noting here that these rings usually have the person's name on them, so there's a significant drop off in value from Anthony Rizzo's ring to some random dude who works in ticketing's ring. I'm sure there are still people who wouldn't care and would just want the Cubs World Series ring, but I wouldn't want something that was obviously intended for someone else. But that's just me.
Yes, these rings would generate quite a price on the open market. That, I think, is part of the team's rationale, too. They don't want to devalue the rings. And making them available to the highest bidder would do just that. They would also lose most of their meaning. Instead of being a reminder of the Cubs team that finally broke the drought, they would become nothing more than a rare sports collectible. These dealers have no sentimentality. They just see them as something valuable that they can make money off of.
That's exactly what the Cubs don't want. There are literally millions of Cubs fans around the world who'd kill to have the rarest of all prizes--a Cubs World Series ring. You get one, then you turn around and sell it to a memorabilia dealer? That either means you don't get it or you're just greedy. That World Series ring should be special to all 1,908 people who received one. If you don't think it's that special, you shouldn't have one.
And there's nothing that says employees can't sell their rings. The Cubs are simply trying to discourage it. If the team chooses not to buy the ring back, the employee can sell it, although the same stipulations will apply to any future owners. They also granted an exception for employees who want to pass their ring on to a family member.
Now, I'm sure most of the negative reaction coming from this is simply because it was made public. And because it's the Cubs, so people know the rings will be expensive. Some collectors have estimated that one from a team employee could go for $50,000, while one from a prominent player could fetch as much as $250,000.
But you know what? This isn't that uncommon, so it's really unfair to criticize the Cubs for trying to protect their investment. Especially when they were so generous. To so many people. All they're asking in return is that they don't take advantage of that generosity. Is that really so much to ask? I don't think so.
Besides, if Cubs fans want a World Series ring so bad, they can still get one. Jostens is selling a fan version for $10,800. And you know what, that version's probably going to look exactly the same and is a lot cheaper than buying one of the real ones in an auction. Let the people who've earned the rings keep theirs. You can still get one. You just have to go online.
Monday, April 17, 2017
Feeding a Niche or Creating a Bigger One?
I recently signed up for the NBC Sports Gold track & field season pass. It's actually not a bad deal. $70 for a year's worth of track & field, including, among other events, all of the Diamond League meets and all 10 days of the World Championships. A lot of this will also be shown on NBC or NBCSN. But not all of it. And not to the extent that it will be streamed.
This is nothing new. One of the best things about the times we live in is that if you try hard enough, you can watch pretty much anything online. There's a stream somewhere (either legal or illegal) of virtually any sporting event you can think of (although those pirated streams aren't always the clearest). This isn't even anything new for NBC. They've streamed every event of the last three Olympics live, often offering multiple streams of the same event at the same time.
And if you're a fan of a sport that doesn't get regular TV coverage, live streaming has been a Godsend. Thanks to live streaming, skiing fans have access to all of the major ski races. Same thing with cycling fans and the major stage races. And figure skating fans. And rugby fans. You get my drift. People have gone from not being able to watch these events at all (or, at most, an hour-long highlights package) to being able to watch them live from start to finish.
NBC Sports Gold was created with this in mind. It started with cycling, then expanded to include rugby, and now features track & field, as well. We're probably going to see more in the future. Swimming? Gymnastics? And, frankly, this is no different than MLB.tv or NBA League Pass, or even paying for NFL Sunday Ticket on your TV. Or ESPN3, which shows a ton of college games in a number of sports, for that matter.
It's also incredibly smart from a business perspective. There's a demand for these events, just not enough of one to justify TV air time for what would likely be low ratings. But there's a demand nonetheless. And if people are willing to pay to watch these events, it makes sense for the on-demand service. You also know what your audience is. If people are willing to pay for it, they really must be true fans.
How many colleges do this for their athletic events? How many sport-specific websites are there that offer similar services? Track & field already has three in RunnerSpace Plus, FloTrack Pro and USATF.tv. The only difference is that this one is backed by a network TV carrier. The one that has the rights to these major events. So now people can watch these major meets online in addition to all those smaller ones.
Broadcasters have been looking for a response to the cord-cutters who choose to not have cable in their homes and rely only on streaming services instead. This is NBC's way to appease those cord-cutters who still want to watch these events, but are unwilling to pay for a whole cable package. And I do think it's the start of a trend. Why wouldn't it be? It's smart business to offer people something they'd be willing to pay for and otherwise wouldn't get.
Of course, there is one major concern. A lot of the sports that have these streaming packages are already considered "niche" sports. Offering these events online and pay-per-view is great for the existing fans of that sport. But that's the only people you're appealing to. You're not going to attract the casual fan by offering these events only via an on-demand pay-per-view model. (This is the same criticism I have about ESPN3.)
That's a very valid worry. Because, as great as the increased exposure is, it's still not TV. Just look at the Final Four. The ratings for this year's Championship Game between North Carolina and Gonzaga were significantly higher than last year's classic between Villanova and North Carolina. Why? This year's game was on CBS. Last year's was on TBS. People love to knock broadcast TV, but it still blows cable out of the water when it comes to live sporting events...even if the game is exclusive on cable!
Same thing applies here. Even if these sports attract low TV ratings, they're still on TV. And, like it or not, TV is still a much more powerful medium than online streaming.
Now, some of these events are being offered both online and on TV. I watched a little bit of the Boston Marathon online today, and it looked like it was just a simulcast of NBCSN's TV coverage. But I bet there will be value in this package moving forward. My guess is that for the Diamond League and the World Championships, they'll show the world feed (which is much better than American TV coverage) live online, while the tape-delayed TV coverage will be the traditional commercial broadcast.
My guess is that the existence of the NBC Sports Gold track & field package will have very little impact on NBC/NBCSN's TV ratings for the Diamond League and World Championships. Just like the live event streaming has had no bearing on the network's Olympic ratings. I think, I hope, that will be the case. Because either they're on to something here or this is the beginning of the end of track & field on TV.
This is nothing new. One of the best things about the times we live in is that if you try hard enough, you can watch pretty much anything online. There's a stream somewhere (either legal or illegal) of virtually any sporting event you can think of (although those pirated streams aren't always the clearest). This isn't even anything new for NBC. They've streamed every event of the last three Olympics live, often offering multiple streams of the same event at the same time.
And if you're a fan of a sport that doesn't get regular TV coverage, live streaming has been a Godsend. Thanks to live streaming, skiing fans have access to all of the major ski races. Same thing with cycling fans and the major stage races. And figure skating fans. And rugby fans. You get my drift. People have gone from not being able to watch these events at all (or, at most, an hour-long highlights package) to being able to watch them live from start to finish.
NBC Sports Gold was created with this in mind. It started with cycling, then expanded to include rugby, and now features track & field, as well. We're probably going to see more in the future. Swimming? Gymnastics? And, frankly, this is no different than MLB.tv or NBA League Pass, or even paying for NFL Sunday Ticket on your TV. Or ESPN3, which shows a ton of college games in a number of sports, for that matter.
It's also incredibly smart from a business perspective. There's a demand for these events, just not enough of one to justify TV air time for what would likely be low ratings. But there's a demand nonetheless. And if people are willing to pay to watch these events, it makes sense for the on-demand service. You also know what your audience is. If people are willing to pay for it, they really must be true fans.
How many colleges do this for their athletic events? How many sport-specific websites are there that offer similar services? Track & field already has three in RunnerSpace Plus, FloTrack Pro and USATF.tv. The only difference is that this one is backed by a network TV carrier. The one that has the rights to these major events. So now people can watch these major meets online in addition to all those smaller ones.
Broadcasters have been looking for a response to the cord-cutters who choose to not have cable in their homes and rely only on streaming services instead. This is NBC's way to appease those cord-cutters who still want to watch these events, but are unwilling to pay for a whole cable package. And I do think it's the start of a trend. Why wouldn't it be? It's smart business to offer people something they'd be willing to pay for and otherwise wouldn't get.
Of course, there is one major concern. A lot of the sports that have these streaming packages are already considered "niche" sports. Offering these events online and pay-per-view is great for the existing fans of that sport. But that's the only people you're appealing to. You're not going to attract the casual fan by offering these events only via an on-demand pay-per-view model. (This is the same criticism I have about ESPN3.)
That's a very valid worry. Because, as great as the increased exposure is, it's still not TV. Just look at the Final Four. The ratings for this year's Championship Game between North Carolina and Gonzaga were significantly higher than last year's classic between Villanova and North Carolina. Why? This year's game was on CBS. Last year's was on TBS. People love to knock broadcast TV, but it still blows cable out of the water when it comes to live sporting events...even if the game is exclusive on cable!
Same thing applies here. Even if these sports attract low TV ratings, they're still on TV. And, like it or not, TV is still a much more powerful medium than online streaming.
Now, some of these events are being offered both online and on TV. I watched a little bit of the Boston Marathon online today, and it looked like it was just a simulcast of NBCSN's TV coverage. But I bet there will be value in this package moving forward. My guess is that for the Diamond League and the World Championships, they'll show the world feed (which is much better than American TV coverage) live online, while the tape-delayed TV coverage will be the traditional commercial broadcast.
My guess is that the existence of the NBC Sports Gold track & field package will have very little impact on NBC/NBCSN's TV ratings for the Diamond League and World Championships. Just like the live event streaming has had no bearing on the network's Olympic ratings. I think, I hope, that will be the case. Because either they're on to something here or this is the beginning of the end of track & field on TV.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
My Campaign Promises
When I declared on my birthday that I'm now officially able to run for President, Jaden Daly (of "Daly Dose of Hoops" fame) said that I'd only get his vote if I were to fire Gary Bettman. That would probably require some sort of agreement with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but I think it's one he could easily get on board with. Gary Bettman is not a good commissioner, and the sport of hockey would be much better off if someone else were running it. So I agreed to that campaign promise.
That also got me thinking as to what some of my other campaign promises would be. Here are some that I came up with:
That also got me thinking as to what some of my other campaign promises would be. Here are some that I came up with:
- It will no longer be an NBA rule that LeBron James is automatically in the Finals: The NBA is a star-driven league. I get that. But the LeBron in the Finals thing is absolutely ridiculous. Not because his team is always there, but because the East is so un-competitive that there's not even a team that has a chance at preventing them from getting there. Why do they even bother with a regular season and Eastern Conference playoffs? Just have the Cavs sit there and wait for the Western Conference winner.
- No more rules changes proposed by Bill Belichick: There seems to be an abundance of new rules proposed to the NFL's Competition Committee by the Patriots, and virtually all of them are accepted. Do we really need to give Belichick any more of an advantage than he already has, though?
- Baseball's "pace of play" initiatives will be repealed: Ever since Rob Manfred became commissioner, he's been obsessed with the pace of play, even though it's not actually a problem. All of his ideas to "speed up the game" haven't worked and need to go. And, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the no-pitch intentional walk is just stupid.
- Rules that actually will make baseball games better to watch will be enacted: Instead of Manfred's stupid new rules, I'll put in some of my own to take their place (and actually improve the viewer experience). Those changes would include, but not be limited to, limiting trips to the mound and limiting throws to first. Both of those things take longer and are significantly more annoying than intentional walks.
- The NHL will be required to take an Olympic break every four years: It's really just ridiculous that they're not going to PyeongChang (which furthers the Bettman-needs-to-go conversation), but plan on coming back for Beijing. No. You can't pick and choose. You're going every four years no matter what. It's a much smaller scale, granted, but the WNBA has no problem with taking an Olympic break...which is the best thing for the sport.
- Any NCAA conference realignment must make geographic sense: I understand that it's not going to stop. Football programs are going to keep chasing dollar signs to larger conferences. But those conferences will be a manageable size and include teams that actually should be playing each other. No West Virginia in the Big 12 or Boston College in the ACC. (It would also be great if the conferences with numbers in their name actually corresponded to the number of teams in the conference).
- Update or do away with the Rooney Rule: Yes, I know this one sounds crazy. But the NFL's "Rooney Rule," which requires teams to interview a minority candidate for head coaching or GM vacancies is working counter to its original intention. Too many minority candidates are getting token interviews simply to satisfy the rule. I get the idea behind it, and there's no denying the Rooney Rule has opened a lot of doors. But it seems like an unnecessary requirement, especially since the purpose it originally served isn't as big of an issue anymore.
- Pitchers must wear double-digit numbers: Marcus Stroman, I'm talking to you. You're not a shortstop. You're a pitcher. And the trend he started is very disturbing. Seemingly every team has the single-digit pitcher now. If football can have a position-based numbering system, why can't baseball?
- Stop with everybody wearing 42 on Jackie Robinson Day: While I'm at it, please end this whole everyone wears No. 42 on April 15 thing! The whole point of numbers is to identify people. If they're all wearing the same number, you can't do that. Also, how much does it speak to his legacy to send a scrawny white middle reliever out there wearing is number?
- You make the team out of Spring Training, you get a big boy number: For the most part, this isn't an issue. But there are plenty of cases where the rookies that do make the team keep the ridiculously high numbers that their team gives them at the start of Spring Training. Unless you have a special reason for wearing No. 78 or No. 83, wear a real number! Anything in the 60s and higher is unacceptable without a valid reason.
- Do away with "Thursday Night Football": Players hate it, the color rush jerseys are disgusting, and the football is generally pretty bad. I'm not saying "Thursday Night Football" was a bad idea. We just don't need a full season of it. And we don't need a nationally-televised Jaguars-Titans game where the uniforms are blinding us. (This may actually happen after the contract expires at the end of this season.)
- Different hats for different occasions go away: Major League Baseball's answer to color rush jerseys is a different hat for every day of the week. I get it, this is an attempt by both MLB and New Era to make more money (which they do very successfully, seeing as suckers still buy these things at $35 a pop), but it's too much. Memorial Day hats, Fourth of July hats, All-Star batting practice hats, Spring Training hats. The only ones that can stay are the World Series hats. All-Star hats are OK, too, as long as it's just the player's regular hat with an All-Star Game logo on the side instead of those monstrosities they've made them wear the last couple years. (Also, am I the only one who doesn't like the new thing with the New Era logo on the left and whatever specialty logo on the right?)
So there you have it, some of my campaign promises for when I rule the world of sports (pending my election of course). I'm sure some of them will appeal to some and not others. Likewise, I'm sure there are plenty more that I could've come up with. But this is a start. And I think if we implemented at least some of them, everyone would be a lot happier.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Stanley Cup Playoff Preview
A year after none of the Canadian teams qualified for the Stanley Cup Playoffs, we've got five of the seven in the field this year. I think it's safe to say that last season was more a blip on the radar than a sign of anything that will be long-term. In fact, the Eastern Conference standings almost entirely flipped this year. Of last year's playoff teams, only the Capitals, Penguins and Rangers return, and every Eastern Conference team except for the Devils, Sabres and Hurricanes has made the playoffs in the last two seasons.
Washington and Pittsburgh, of course, are the two marquee franchises in the NHL at the moment. The Capitals won their second consecutive President's Trophy, and the Penguins are the defending champions. They have to enter the playoffs as the two biggest favorites to win the Cup, and not just because they're the two best teams in the league. You can't count Chicago out either. This is, after all, an odd year, and the Blackhawks win the Cup in odd years. They had the best record in the West and you know they're eager to make up for last year's first-round exit.
Most of the attention this year has been focused on the East, and rightfully so, but that doesn't mean whoever wins the Eastern Conference is guaranteed to skate with the Cup. Nor is Chicago guaranteed to win the West. There are a number of teams that can give the Blackhawks a challenge, starting with the Ducks, but also including the defending conference champion Sharks and a St. Louis team that knocked the Blackhawks out last season.
In the East, you know it's going to be a bloodbath in the first two rounds on the Metropolitan side of the bracket. My dissatisfaction with the current playoff system is well-known, and the fact that Pittsburgh, the second-best team in the league, has to play Columbus (third-best) and Washington (President's Trophy winners) just to get to the conference finals is ridiculous. And you know who could benefit? The Rangers-Canadiens winner.
Canadiens-Rangers: The Rangers are perhaps the first team in history that wanted to finish lower in its division to improve its playoff position. Well, they got exactly what they wanted, and it's a much easier route to the Eastern Conference Final (which I don't think would surprise anybody). Montreal is definitely a better matchup than either Washington or Pittsburgh, but the Canadiens aren't exactly going to be easy. In fact, Montreal won all three games during the regular season. They've got Carey Price, the memory of missing the playoffs last season, and the memory of the 2014 Eastern Conference Final. But. The Rangers had the best road record in hockey and worked themselves into a more favorable matchup. This will be a competitive series with a number of one-goal games, but I do see the Rangers doing what they need to do to win it. Rangers in six.
Senators-Bruins: This series exposes the other major flaw of the playoff format. Either Pittsburgh or Columbus will definitely be eliminated, while either Ottawa or Boston is guaranteed to advance (and get home ice in the second round if the Rangers win). I think this might end up being the tightest of the eight first-round series. Ottawa and Boston were very evenly matched all season long, with the Senators barely finishing ahead and earning home ice for this series. Although, much like the Rangers, the Bruins caught a huge break when Toronto lost on the last day of the season. They got the Senators instead of the Capitals, and I see them taking full advantage. A Bruins win guarantees an all-Original Six second round series. Bruins in seven.
Capitals-Maple Leafs: NBC wanted this matchup, but they might be the only ones. It's great to see Toronto back in the playoffs, but it looks like it'll be a short stay for Auston Matthews and Co. Do I think Washington is going to win the Stanley Cup? No. What makes them a great regular season team is why they're vulnerable in the playoffs. They become easier to scout the longer a best-of-seven goes. However, with that being said, they're significantly better than Toronto. Had the Leafs beaten Columbus in the final game, we might be talking about them potentially reaching the second round of the playoffs for the first time since 2004 (that's pre-Lockout 1.0). As it is, they'll be lucky to win a game in their first trip to the postseason in four years. Capitals in five.
Penguins-Blue Jackets: Did any team get screwed by the playoff system more than Columbus? This team has the talent to be playing into June. But there's no way they're getting past both of the top two teams in the league. Beating the Penguins is going to be a very tall order. Pittsburgh is loaded, and they should be healthy for the playoffs. And, of course, let's not forget the Penguins are the defending champions. This might've been the worst possible first-round assignment for the Penguins, but it's not exactly as if Columbus considers this matchup easy for them. Sergei Bobrovsky is going to be the key. For the Blue Jackets to win a playoff series for the first time in their history, he'll need to come up big. Pittsburgh has way too many weapons, though. I'm not sure he can stop them all. Penguins in six.
Blackhawks-Predators: Nashville was a very popular Stanley Cup pick in the preseason. They had an up-and-down season, but none of that matters now. Because the Predators are a very dangerous team. One that had to travel back-and-forth to California during the playoffs twice last year, yet still was one win away from the Conference Final. It's definitely there. It might not be enough for the Blackhawks, though. Chicago is the most playoff-tested team of the 16 remaining. More importantly, the Blackhawks know how to win in April and May. I don't see that changing as long as Kane and Toews are around, either. As long as they get solid goaltending, we're probably looking at another deep run for the San Francisco Giants of hockey. Blackhawks in six.
Wild-Blues: When these two met in the first round two years ago, Minnesota upset the top-seeded Blues. St. Louis, meanwhile, finally broke through and got to the Conference Final last year. Do they have another deep run in them? That I'm not so sure of. The Wild were one of the most consistent teams in the NHL all season. And the funny thing is nobody is talking about them. They finished second in the Central for a reason, though, and I think that home ice advantage will end up being a big factor in this series. One of the reasons the NHL likes this stupid format is because they get these great playoff battles between division rivals. This series will be no exception. I'll be very surprised if it doesn't go seven, where Minnesota having the home game will make a huge difference. Wild in seven.
Ducks-Flames: If anybody in the West has a chance at knocking off Chicago, my money's on Anaheim. The Ducks had to fight Edmonton literally down to the wire for the division title, but they did end up securing their fourth straight division crown. They've got nothing to show for it, though. They've lost a Game 7 four years in a row, including three straight home Game 7 losses. Understandably, they Ducks have developed a bit of a reputation for not being able to finish the deal. Calgary's a very good young team that's really fun to watch. But we might be a year or two away from the Alberta clubs bringing us back to the late 80s. As for 2017, the Ducks are simply too good for the Flames. That is, unless it gets to a Game 7, in which case Anaheim could be in trouble. Ducks in six.
Oilers-Sharks: I'm really looking forward to this series. It should be a fun one. Conor McDavid finally gets the playoff stage. How will he handle it? Can he bring the Oilers back to the Gretzky-Messier Glory Days? Well, we'll find out quickly against a Sharks team that finally overcame its playoff demons and reached the Stanley Cup Final last season. Was that an anomaly or have those demons been permanently exorcised? Either way, I do like San Jose in this series. Once you get there, you feel that urge to get back. And San Jose is perfectly equipped to do just that. At the very least, the playoff-tested Sharks should be able to get by a young Oilers team returning to the postseason for the first time since Edmonton's Final run in 2006. I can guarantee that it won't take 11 years for them to get back to the playoffs again. Sharks in six.
As for the really early Final pick, I'd be stupid to go against the Blackhawks and their odd-year mojo (especially after the Cubs' win). I'm gonna go with Chicago over Pittsburgh in the Stanley Cup Final. But this is the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Anything can happen. That's why the next two months are gonna be so much fun.
Monday, April 10, 2017
Why a Tri-Bid?
The United States, Mexico and Canada formally announced their tri-bid for the 2026 World Cup today. This was not a surprise to anyone. It's been expected for quite some time. It's also the odds-on favorite to host the first expanded 48-team World Cup.
Here's my question, though--Why is it a tri-bid? Especially since 75 percent of the tournament is going to be in the United States. The expanded field and additional games do limit the number of countries that will be able to host moving forward, so joint bids and co-hosts will likely become the norm. But the United States is not a country that needs to co-host. In fact, it's one of the few that can handle the larger tournament pretty easily.
I can somewhat understand wanting to include Mexico and being able to use Azteca for some of the games, but where else in Mexico would you play? And where in Canada? They drew a ton of criticism for using turf during the 2015 Women's World Cup, and they'd almost certainly have to use natural grass in the men's World Cup. There's also the question of where in Canada you'd play. The Blue Jays will have installed grass in SkyDome by then, but will they make the stadium available for the World Cup? And will they let the soccer players tear up their grass? The Canadian National Team plays most of its home games at BMO Field in Toronto, but is that big enough?
We're also talking about a huge area. The United States itself is big enough. Now you're adding Canada and Mexico to the equation. The organizers of the bid have acknowledged this little problem and suggested that they'd have to break the games up regionally, which makes complete sense. In fact, assuming there are 12 stadiums in the U.S. and two each in Canada and Mexico, they could have each of the 16 groups play all of the group games in the same stadium, with travel only coming into play once the knockout round begins.
If there are 16 stadiums in use, each would host five games--three in group play, one in the round of 32, and another knockout round game. They'd have to figure out the groups so that each of the hosts can play all of their games in their own country, but I'd break it down like this: Canada-Toronto, Montreal; Mexico-Mexico City, Guadalajara; United States-Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington.
Since this will be the first World Cup with 48 teams, it will also be the first with the new qualifying format. More on that in a second, but one of the more significant parts of the new qualifying system is that the host country's automatic bid will come out of their federation's allotment. All three hosts understandably want an automatic bid, which creates a little bit of a problem in that it essentially takes away all three of the additional spots that CONCACAF was just given (although the chances that the U.S. and Mexico would qualify anyway, especially with six teams coming out of the region now, you'd figure are pretty high).
CONCACAF going from three bids to six seemed likely all along. That's the number that makes the most sense. Of course, that would mean the end of the Hex, although, if the three North American teams do co-host, we might see the Hex get one last hurrah in 2024-25. Moving forward, though, it doesn't make sense to have a final qualifying round of six when you've got six teams advancing. What seems the most logical to me is a 10-team final round split into two groups of five, with the top three in each qualifying.
Nothing is going to change in South American qualifying. They only have 10 teams, so they weren't going to get many more berths than their current 4.5. With the number of South American qualifiers now at six, a full 60 percent of the membership will play in the World Cup. Africa will have nine, so I'd figure they'll have nine qualifying groups with the winners advancing. Asia's bids have been increased to eight. They already have their qualifiers coming out of two final groups, so I can see those final groups simply becoming bigger. And Oceania (meaning New Zealand) is finally going to get an automatic bid, which is long overdue.
Europe is where things get interesting. UEFA's bids only increased from 13 to 16. The rationale for that makes total sense, though. For the UEFA President, it was more important to keep the European teams separated than to have more in the tournament. Since there will be 16 groups, 16 European teams made perfect sense. One in each group, guaranteeing none can play each other prior to the knockout round. And it actually makes European qualifying pretty easy, too. Eight groups, with the top two advancing.
My favorite feature of the new World Cup qualifying system, though, is the playoff tournament. This replaces those inter-confederation playoffs at the end of the qualifying window. Six teams, one from each region except Europe, plus an extra one from the host confederation (which loses one of its bids to the host country). Two get seeded based on world rankings and play the winners of games between the four unseeded teams. The winners of those two games qualify. I love it.
Who would qualify for that playoff tournament is still a little foggy, though. FIFA said it's based on world ranking, but I think it should be based on how they fared in their confederation's qualifying. Meaning I want to see the seventh-place team from CONMEBOL and the second-place team from Oceania. They deserve the second chance more than the team that struggled in qualifying, but has a higher ranking.
Regardless of how it's set up, the playoff tournament is going to add a whole new layer of intrigue to the 2026 World Cup, which will almost certainly be tri-hosted by the three North American countries. It's really the only logical choice to host the first 48-team tournament.
Here's my question, though--Why is it a tri-bid? Especially since 75 percent of the tournament is going to be in the United States. The expanded field and additional games do limit the number of countries that will be able to host moving forward, so joint bids and co-hosts will likely become the norm. But the United States is not a country that needs to co-host. In fact, it's one of the few that can handle the larger tournament pretty easily.
I can somewhat understand wanting to include Mexico and being able to use Azteca for some of the games, but where else in Mexico would you play? And where in Canada? They drew a ton of criticism for using turf during the 2015 Women's World Cup, and they'd almost certainly have to use natural grass in the men's World Cup. There's also the question of where in Canada you'd play. The Blue Jays will have installed grass in SkyDome by then, but will they make the stadium available for the World Cup? And will they let the soccer players tear up their grass? The Canadian National Team plays most of its home games at BMO Field in Toronto, but is that big enough?
We're also talking about a huge area. The United States itself is big enough. Now you're adding Canada and Mexico to the equation. The organizers of the bid have acknowledged this little problem and suggested that they'd have to break the games up regionally, which makes complete sense. In fact, assuming there are 12 stadiums in the U.S. and two each in Canada and Mexico, they could have each of the 16 groups play all of the group games in the same stadium, with travel only coming into play once the knockout round begins.
If there are 16 stadiums in use, each would host five games--three in group play, one in the round of 32, and another knockout round game. They'd have to figure out the groups so that each of the hosts can play all of their games in their own country, but I'd break it down like this: Canada-Toronto, Montreal; Mexico-Mexico City, Guadalajara; United States-Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington.
Since this will be the first World Cup with 48 teams, it will also be the first with the new qualifying format. More on that in a second, but one of the more significant parts of the new qualifying system is that the host country's automatic bid will come out of their federation's allotment. All three hosts understandably want an automatic bid, which creates a little bit of a problem in that it essentially takes away all three of the additional spots that CONCACAF was just given (although the chances that the U.S. and Mexico would qualify anyway, especially with six teams coming out of the region now, you'd figure are pretty high).
CONCACAF going from three bids to six seemed likely all along. That's the number that makes the most sense. Of course, that would mean the end of the Hex, although, if the three North American teams do co-host, we might see the Hex get one last hurrah in 2024-25. Moving forward, though, it doesn't make sense to have a final qualifying round of six when you've got six teams advancing. What seems the most logical to me is a 10-team final round split into two groups of five, with the top three in each qualifying.
Nothing is going to change in South American qualifying. They only have 10 teams, so they weren't going to get many more berths than their current 4.5. With the number of South American qualifiers now at six, a full 60 percent of the membership will play in the World Cup. Africa will have nine, so I'd figure they'll have nine qualifying groups with the winners advancing. Asia's bids have been increased to eight. They already have their qualifiers coming out of two final groups, so I can see those final groups simply becoming bigger. And Oceania (meaning New Zealand) is finally going to get an automatic bid, which is long overdue.
Europe is where things get interesting. UEFA's bids only increased from 13 to 16. The rationale for that makes total sense, though. For the UEFA President, it was more important to keep the European teams separated than to have more in the tournament. Since there will be 16 groups, 16 European teams made perfect sense. One in each group, guaranteeing none can play each other prior to the knockout round. And it actually makes European qualifying pretty easy, too. Eight groups, with the top two advancing.
My favorite feature of the new World Cup qualifying system, though, is the playoff tournament. This replaces those inter-confederation playoffs at the end of the qualifying window. Six teams, one from each region except Europe, plus an extra one from the host confederation (which loses one of its bids to the host country). Two get seeded based on world rankings and play the winners of games between the four unseeded teams. The winners of those two games qualify. I love it.
Who would qualify for that playoff tournament is still a little foggy, though. FIFA said it's based on world ranking, but I think it should be based on how they fared in their confederation's qualifying. Meaning I want to see the seventh-place team from CONMEBOL and the second-place team from Oceania. They deserve the second chance more than the team that struggled in qualifying, but has a higher ranking.
Regardless of how it's set up, the playoff tournament is going to add a whole new layer of intrigue to the 2026 World Cup, which will almost certainly be tri-hosted by the three North American countries. It's really the only logical choice to host the first 48-team tournament.
Saturday, April 8, 2017
An American Shocker
Wichita State is moving from the Missouri Valley Conference to the American next season. It's a great move for the Shockers, who've been NCAA Tournament regulars over the past few years, but have been frequently underseeded, including this season when they were inexplicably given a 10-seed. Even when they were undefeated and got a No. 1 seed a few years ago, they had to play Kentucky (which went to the National Championship Game) in the second round.
Make no mistake. This is purely a basketball move. Whereas most changes in conference affiliation over the past 10 years have been with football in mind, this one is all about basketball. Wichita State is doing this because of basketball, and it's because of basketball that they're able to do it.
They were stuck in an incredibly awkward situation where they were the top dog in a mid-major league (one of the better ones, I might add), which usually ended up "hurting" them in the long run. Their RPI wasn't very strong because of their league, and they couldn't get any games against big-time opponents because nobody wanted to play them. It was an incredible catch-22, and you have to think it's one of the primary reasons why Wichita State, despite a Final Four run in 2013 and a No. 1 seed a year later, was so dramatically underseeded. Simply put, there was no longer any benefit to being in the Missouri Valley Conference.
For them, going to the American makes a lot of sense. As we all know, the American is still a fairly young conference, and it was only formed when the Big East split in two. It's also a conference that fears for its stability. UConn is their marquee program, but they don't want to be there. Houston is chomping at the bit to join the Big 12, and Cincinnati would likely prefer to be elsewhere, too. If any of those teams were to leave, Wichita State would immediately become the American's top dog. And since they don't have football, there's no chance they'd try to leave.
But for a program like Wichita State, the American is an absolute upgrade. Instead of playing home-and-homes with Bradley, Drake and Loyola Chicago, now they'll be playing conference games against teams like UConn and Cincinnati and SMU. The American isn't the strongest of leagues. But it has been a multi-bid league every year of its existence. UConn's won a National Championship, SMU has become a big time program, and Central Florida made the semifinals of the NIT this season. The Shockers' strength of schedule is immediately going to go up. And now they're in a position where they don't have to worry about needing to win the league to get in.
This is obviously a blow to the Missouri Valley Conference. They lost Creighton to the Big East during the last round of conference realignment, and now they lose their other headliner to the American. Now the top programs in the Missouri Valley, which has such a great history, are probably Northern Iowa and Illinois State. It's still going to be a good, very competitive mid-major conference. But the days of the Missouri Valley regularly being in the mix for multiple at-large bids appear to be over.
I'm not saying the MVC is destined to become a one-bid league forever. It just seems like the at-large bids will be far less frequent. And they'll also be looking at 13- or 14- or maybe even 15-seeds now. Will they recover? Probably. But the loss of the best team is certainly a blow.
How long the MVC is down really might depend on what school replaces Wichita State. Not counting Wichita State, there are currently nine schools in the MVC, which is a number they can easily make-do with in 2017-18 if they need to. But you've gotta figure they're going to move swiftly trying to find a new member that may not be of Wichita State's caliber, but will hopefully be close enough. And with the MVC AD's set to meet in St. Louis this weekend, you'd have to think that's what they're going to talk about.
The two schools I've heard mentioned as their potential targets are Valparaiso and Murray State. Murray State has been one of the top programs in the Ohio Valley Conference for the last couple of years, but isn't remotely close to the brand name Valparaiso is. To me it's a no-brainer for both the league and the program that Valparaiso should be Wichita State's replacement in the Missouri Valley Conference.
Valparaiso has its own NCAA Tournament history, so it would give the MVC another relevant name. It's also one that would be competitive in men's basketball, which I think is equally important when you're losing your best team. Likewise, they're a fit geographically. Valpo is in Indiana, but it's close to Chicago, which makes flying in very easy for the schools that aren't close enough to bus.
Most importantly, though, for Valparaiso, going from the Horizon League to the Missouri Valley would be an upgrade. Wichita State got out because being in the MVC was no longer benefiting them. It's the exact opposite for Valpo. Moving to the MVC would be a great benefit to their program.
Don't be surprised when the Missouri Valley Conference announces its adding Valparaiso. It makes total sense. And it's a perfect fit. Valpo needs the Missouri Valley as much as the Missouri Valley needs Valpo. Just like Wichita State and the American needed each other.
Make no mistake. This is purely a basketball move. Whereas most changes in conference affiliation over the past 10 years have been with football in mind, this one is all about basketball. Wichita State is doing this because of basketball, and it's because of basketball that they're able to do it.
They were stuck in an incredibly awkward situation where they were the top dog in a mid-major league (one of the better ones, I might add), which usually ended up "hurting" them in the long run. Their RPI wasn't very strong because of their league, and they couldn't get any games against big-time opponents because nobody wanted to play them. It was an incredible catch-22, and you have to think it's one of the primary reasons why Wichita State, despite a Final Four run in 2013 and a No. 1 seed a year later, was so dramatically underseeded. Simply put, there was no longer any benefit to being in the Missouri Valley Conference.
For them, going to the American makes a lot of sense. As we all know, the American is still a fairly young conference, and it was only formed when the Big East split in two. It's also a conference that fears for its stability. UConn is their marquee program, but they don't want to be there. Houston is chomping at the bit to join the Big 12, and Cincinnati would likely prefer to be elsewhere, too. If any of those teams were to leave, Wichita State would immediately become the American's top dog. And since they don't have football, there's no chance they'd try to leave.
But for a program like Wichita State, the American is an absolute upgrade. Instead of playing home-and-homes with Bradley, Drake and Loyola Chicago, now they'll be playing conference games against teams like UConn and Cincinnati and SMU. The American isn't the strongest of leagues. But it has been a multi-bid league every year of its existence. UConn's won a National Championship, SMU has become a big time program, and Central Florida made the semifinals of the NIT this season. The Shockers' strength of schedule is immediately going to go up. And now they're in a position where they don't have to worry about needing to win the league to get in.
This is obviously a blow to the Missouri Valley Conference. They lost Creighton to the Big East during the last round of conference realignment, and now they lose their other headliner to the American. Now the top programs in the Missouri Valley, which has such a great history, are probably Northern Iowa and Illinois State. It's still going to be a good, very competitive mid-major conference. But the days of the Missouri Valley regularly being in the mix for multiple at-large bids appear to be over.
I'm not saying the MVC is destined to become a one-bid league forever. It just seems like the at-large bids will be far less frequent. And they'll also be looking at 13- or 14- or maybe even 15-seeds now. Will they recover? Probably. But the loss of the best team is certainly a blow.
How long the MVC is down really might depend on what school replaces Wichita State. Not counting Wichita State, there are currently nine schools in the MVC, which is a number they can easily make-do with in 2017-18 if they need to. But you've gotta figure they're going to move swiftly trying to find a new member that may not be of Wichita State's caliber, but will hopefully be close enough. And with the MVC AD's set to meet in St. Louis this weekend, you'd have to think that's what they're going to talk about.
The two schools I've heard mentioned as their potential targets are Valparaiso and Murray State. Murray State has been one of the top programs in the Ohio Valley Conference for the last couple of years, but isn't remotely close to the brand name Valparaiso is. To me it's a no-brainer for both the league and the program that Valparaiso should be Wichita State's replacement in the Missouri Valley Conference.
Valparaiso has its own NCAA Tournament history, so it would give the MVC another relevant name. It's also one that would be competitive in men's basketball, which I think is equally important when you're losing your best team. Likewise, they're a fit geographically. Valpo is in Indiana, but it's close to Chicago, which makes flying in very easy for the schools that aren't close enough to bus.
Most importantly, though, for Valparaiso, going from the Horizon League to the Missouri Valley would be an upgrade. Wichita State got out because being in the MVC was no longer benefiting them. It's the exact opposite for Valpo. Moving to the MVC would be a great benefit to their program.
Don't be surprised when the Missouri Valley Conference announces its adding Valparaiso. It makes total sense. And it's a perfect fit. Valpo needs the Missouri Valley as much as the Missouri Valley needs Valpo. Just like Wichita State and the American needed each other.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
No NHL In Korea
A lot of stuff has happened in the last couple days, huh? UConn's winning streak came to an end in a ridiculous game! The Carolinas (North and South) won NCAA basketball championships. Tony Romo was released by the Cowboys and immediately hired by CBS as their lead analyst, despite having no broadcasting experience.
And, perhaps most significantly, the NHL continued to show how completely tone deaf it is by announcing they weren't going to the PyeongChang Olympics (saying that the matter is "closed") ON THE SAME DAY they announced plans to play two exhibition games in China next season. This, despite the fact that Gary Bettman and the owners seem to be the ONLY people that don't want NHL players participating.
This stance appears to be only for 2018. The NHL fully intends on participating in the 2022 Games in Beijing. Because they want the exposure of the potentially lucrative Chinese market. They don't see the same value in going to Korea, and they don't want to suspend the season so that their players can go to the Olympics, play in the middle of the night and potentially get hurt if there's nothing in it for them.
Unfortunately, the only people who didn't NHL players participating for the sixth consecutive Olympics were the only ones that held any power in the situation. All they see is the almighty dollar. What the players want, what the fans want and what's good for the game evidently don't matter. So, as a result, the men's Olympic hockey tournament will go from the marquee event to little more than a glorified World Championships (which take place during the Stanley Cup Playoffs, so most Americans and Canadians don't even realize they're happening most of the time). And we get robbed of seeing the best against the best on the biggest stage that sports can offer.
There are a lot of long term repercussions of the NHL's decision not to participate. The IOC and IIHF both warned the NHL that if they don't go to PyeongChang, they might not be welcome in Beijing. In a way, I really hope they aren't bluffing about that. They said that the NHL can't "pick and choose" which Olympics it attends, and the only way to get that point across would be to say "thanks, but no thanks" when it comes to Beijing.
The NHL owners are the only ones with any power here. I'd love to see some push back, if only because they aren't acting in anyone's best interest (including their own). Their relationships with the IOC and IIHF are strained, and you can bet NBC and CBC (which are both NHL and Olympic broadcasters) aren't too happy either.
What they've made abundantly clear here, though, is that they don't view the players as equal partners. Not even close. The players want to play. The owners know that. They just don't care. Months ago, the owners offered the players the opportunity to go to PyeongChang in exchange for a two-year extension of the CBA. They didn't take it, arguing (rightfully so) that they shouldn't have to make any concessions to play. Now, there's no chance the players won't opt out of the current CBA when they can in 2020. And, seeing as this is the NHL, you know that when they do, Lockout 3.0 is inevitable (I guess not playing games then is OK?). How could it not be? The owners clearly don't care about what the players want, so why should the players care about what the owners want?
Some of the players still don't care. Even after the NHL's announcement, Alex Ovechkin said he still plans on going to Korea and playing for Russia, and he has the blessing of Capitals owner Ted Leonisis to do so. How many other players will defy the league and play in the Olympics anyway? And how many owners will be as understanding as Leonisis?
One of the articles I read today made a very interesting prediction. It suggested that a number of big-name free agents may take one-year deals somewhere in Europe so that they can play in PyeongChang, only to return to the NHL in 2018-19. Considering the number of players that have already jumped to the KHL or other European leagues, that's not too far-fetched. After all, that's what a lot of players did during the 2004-05 lockout (and some stayed there).
Assuming some sort of resolution isn't reached (which I still think there can be, despite the NHL's drawing a line in the sand), the U.S. and Canada will be looking towards those European-based pros when constructing their 2018 Olympic rosters. It would also make Russia, which would have former NHL All-Stars Ilya Kovalchuk and Pavel Datsyuk (both playing in the KHL), among others, available, the odds-on favorites.
Meanwhile, instead of seeing Auston Matthews and Johnny Gaudreau wearing Red, White and Blue on the world's biggest sporting stage, they'll continue toiling away North of the Border. Speaking of North of the Border, instead of Sidney Crosby and Carey Price and 21 other NHL All-Stars wearing the Maple Leaf (for Canada, not Toronto) on their chest, we'll get to see a bunch of career minor leaguers and European pros.
I'm glad the NHL owners got what they wanted out of this Olympic "deal." Because nobody else did. Instead of using the platform to promote the sport on a global stage, they're going to be in direct competition with the Olympics. Makes total sense to me. Another stroke of brilliance by the NHL's powers that be.
And, perhaps most significantly, the NHL continued to show how completely tone deaf it is by announcing they weren't going to the PyeongChang Olympics (saying that the matter is "closed") ON THE SAME DAY they announced plans to play two exhibition games in China next season. This, despite the fact that Gary Bettman and the owners seem to be the ONLY people that don't want NHL players participating.
This stance appears to be only for 2018. The NHL fully intends on participating in the 2022 Games in Beijing. Because they want the exposure of the potentially lucrative Chinese market. They don't see the same value in going to Korea, and they don't want to suspend the season so that their players can go to the Olympics, play in the middle of the night and potentially get hurt if there's nothing in it for them.
Unfortunately, the only people who didn't NHL players participating for the sixth consecutive Olympics were the only ones that held any power in the situation. All they see is the almighty dollar. What the players want, what the fans want and what's good for the game evidently don't matter. So, as a result, the men's Olympic hockey tournament will go from the marquee event to little more than a glorified World Championships (which take place during the Stanley Cup Playoffs, so most Americans and Canadians don't even realize they're happening most of the time). And we get robbed of seeing the best against the best on the biggest stage that sports can offer.
There are a lot of long term repercussions of the NHL's decision not to participate. The IOC and IIHF both warned the NHL that if they don't go to PyeongChang, they might not be welcome in Beijing. In a way, I really hope they aren't bluffing about that. They said that the NHL can't "pick and choose" which Olympics it attends, and the only way to get that point across would be to say "thanks, but no thanks" when it comes to Beijing.
The NHL owners are the only ones with any power here. I'd love to see some push back, if only because they aren't acting in anyone's best interest (including their own). Their relationships with the IOC and IIHF are strained, and you can bet NBC and CBC (which are both NHL and Olympic broadcasters) aren't too happy either.
What they've made abundantly clear here, though, is that they don't view the players as equal partners. Not even close. The players want to play. The owners know that. They just don't care. Months ago, the owners offered the players the opportunity to go to PyeongChang in exchange for a two-year extension of the CBA. They didn't take it, arguing (rightfully so) that they shouldn't have to make any concessions to play. Now, there's no chance the players won't opt out of the current CBA when they can in 2020. And, seeing as this is the NHL, you know that when they do, Lockout 3.0 is inevitable (I guess not playing games then is OK?). How could it not be? The owners clearly don't care about what the players want, so why should the players care about what the owners want?
Some of the players still don't care. Even after the NHL's announcement, Alex Ovechkin said he still plans on going to Korea and playing for Russia, and he has the blessing of Capitals owner Ted Leonisis to do so. How many other players will defy the league and play in the Olympics anyway? And how many owners will be as understanding as Leonisis?
One of the articles I read today made a very interesting prediction. It suggested that a number of big-name free agents may take one-year deals somewhere in Europe so that they can play in PyeongChang, only to return to the NHL in 2018-19. Considering the number of players that have already jumped to the KHL or other European leagues, that's not too far-fetched. After all, that's what a lot of players did during the 2004-05 lockout (and some stayed there).
Assuming some sort of resolution isn't reached (which I still think there can be, despite the NHL's drawing a line in the sand), the U.S. and Canada will be looking towards those European-based pros when constructing their 2018 Olympic rosters. It would also make Russia, which would have former NHL All-Stars Ilya Kovalchuk and Pavel Datsyuk (both playing in the KHL), among others, available, the odds-on favorites.
Meanwhile, instead of seeing Auston Matthews and Johnny Gaudreau wearing Red, White and Blue on the world's biggest sporting stage, they'll continue toiling away North of the Border. Speaking of North of the Border, instead of Sidney Crosby and Carey Price and 21 other NHL All-Stars wearing the Maple Leaf (for Canada, not Toronto) on their chest, we'll get to see a bunch of career minor leaguers and European pros.
I'm glad the NHL owners got what they wanted out of this Olympic "deal." Because nobody else did. Instead of using the platform to promote the sport on a global stage, they're going to be in direct competition with the Olympics. Makes total sense to me. Another stroke of brilliance by the NHL's powers that be.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Baseball Preview (NL West)
Opening Day is here! After nearly five months without Major League Baseball (save for that wonderful diversion known as the World Baseball Classic), it's back. And we're going to have at least one game pretty much every day from now until October.
But before we put our Caps On, it's time to finish up the baseball preview. As usual, we end with Part VI, the NL West. And as usual, the Dodgers are the clear favorites in the NL West. I really don't see that changing anytime soon. This team is loaded, and they have a singular mission of winning the World Series. Until that happens, expect to see them losing in the playoffs.
The Giants are probably the only team in the NL West that can even give the Dodgers any sort of a challenge. The Rockies and Diamondbacks both have some quality pieces, but nowhere near enough of them. And Padres are just a mess. San Diego's only pro team enters about year 12 of its 10-year rebuilding plan. They're more likely to challenge for 100 losses than for the NL West title.
1. Los Angeles Dodgers: It all starts with Clayton Kershaw and goes from there. And he actually won't have to bear the entire pitching burden himself this season, as Hyun-Jin Ryu and Brandon McCarthy both return from the injuries that resulted in their respective 2016s being lost seasons. Their rotation isn't strong as the Cubs (which is one the reasons Chicago beat them in the NLCS). But they've long needed to give Kershaw some help, and this year it looks like they finally might be able to. They also benefitted greatly from re-signing their two biggest free agents. They wouldn't have been able to replace Kenley Jansen and Justin Turner with anyone near the same caliber. And I've got an idea for another free agent the Dodgers should sign. Angel Pagan. How perfectly would he fit in as their left fielder? Andre Ethier is nothing more than a pinch hitter at this point, and I still have no idea who Andrew Toles is. Once other teams start scouting him, I think he's really going to struggle. Hopefully the struggles are over for the Dodgers' other two outfielders--Joc Pederson and Yasiel Puig. If they can get back to the same type of numbers they put up as rookies, this lineup becomes even more formidable. Logan Forsythe is a clear upgrade at second base, and he can even move over to short if Corey Seager is out for an extended period. Unless something drastic happens, expect to see this team in October once again. And this year I think they might be in for an extended stay.
Projected Lineup: Logan Forsythe-SS, Chase Utley-2B, Adrian Gonzalez-1B, Justin Turner-3B, Yasmani Grandal-C, Joc Pederson-CF, Yasiel Puig-RF, Andrew Toles-LF (Corey Seager)
Projected Rotation: Clayton Kershaw, Kenta Maeda, Brandon McCarthy, Rich Hill, Hyun-Jin Ryu
Closer: Kenley Jansen
Projected Record: 96-66
2. San Francisco Giants: Their even-year magic finally wore off. Now can they get over their odd-year negative karma? I really don't see a reason why not. Because the Giants are one of the best teams in the National League, and if anyone is going to give the Dodgers a run for the division title, it'll be them. All-Stars all over the field, starting with Madison Bumgarner, and now they've got an All-Star at the end of games, too. Mark Melancon is a clear upgrade at closer over whoever they had last season. The All-Stars extend to the position players, and it's much more than just WBC champions Buster Posey and Brandon Crawford. Posey, Hunter Pence and Brandon Belt are one of the best 3-4-5 combos out there, and they're really strong at the top with Denard Span and Joe Panik. I found it a little curious that they didn't even make an attempt to re-sign Angel Pagan, but they've got confidence in Jarrett Parker. But, if Parker doesn't perform or Pagan signs with the Dodgers and does, they may come to regret it. They also aren't incredibly deep, so any injury is something to worry about. Especially in the rotation, which is much more than just Bumgarner. Remember, Matt Cain used to be this team's ace, and he's now their No. 5 starter. If they can stay healthy, though, the Giants are a serious contender not just in the NL West, but in the entire National League.
Projected Lineup: Denard Span-CF, Joe Panik-2B, Buster Posey-C, Hunter Pence-RF, Brandon Belt-1B, Jarrett Parker-LF, Eduardo Nunez-3B, Brandon Crawford-SS
Projected Rotation: Madison Bumgarner, Johnny Cueto, Matt Moore, Jeff Samardzija, Matt Cain
Closer: Mark Melancon
Projected Record: 91-71
3. Colorado Rockies: Slowly but surely, we're finding out the names of the players on the Colorado Rockies. We already knew about Carlos Gonzalez, and that was Rockies third baseman Nolan Arenado striking out in the middle of the USA lineup during the WBC. As it turns out, he's led the NL in RBIs in each of the last two years. Although, seeing as the Rockies have been in existence for 25 years and that's been their M.O. the entire time, that shouldn't really surprise anybody. And it doesn't seem likely to change this year. They're going to hit a lot of homers and score a lot of runs in that thin mountain air. Will they get the pitching to back it up though? Probably not. Former Royal Greg Holland returns from Tommy John surgery as the Rockies' new closer, but how many save opportunities is he going to get? It's doesn't seem like it'll be a lot. I get it. Pitching's never going to be their strength. They know that, too. So they're once again going to rely on beating teams 9-7. Fortunately they've got the offense and the ballpark to do that. They won't win enough games to be contenders, but they're definitely capable of threatening the .500 mark. Third place seems like a lock for this team. They're just so much better than both the Diamondbacks and Padres.
Projected Lineup: Gerardo Parra-LF, DJ LeMahieu-2B, Nolan Arenado-3B, Carlos Gonzalez-RF, Mark Reynolds-1B, Trevor Story-SS, Charlie Blackmon-CF, Tony Wolters-C
Projected Rotation: Jon Gray, Tyler Anderson, Tyler Chatwood, Antonio Senzatela, Kyle Freeland
Closer: Greg Holland
Projected Record: 80-82
4. Arizona Diamondbacks: I have one question for all those morons that were clamoring for Paul Goldschmidt to play during the World Baseball Classic. Did you want him to sit Eric Hosmer? Can you really tell me Goldschmidt, who was the American DH until Giancarlo seized the role, deserved to start over a guy who was on base the entire tournament?! Anyway, I digress. There are other players on the Diamondbacks not named Goldschmidt, but not enough to make them relevant. Even if Yasmany Tomas and A.J. Pollock are entertaining to watch. If they have any chance in the NL West, it'll come down to Zack Greinke and the pitching staff. They broke the bank going after Greinke, but he went just 13-7 with a 4.37 ERA during his first season in the desert. Keep in mind, as Arizona's No. 1, he's pitching against Kershaw and Bumgarner on a regular basis, and he isn't as good as either one of them. Not that any team in their right mind wouldn't take Greinke. Shelby Miller was their other big get last offseason, and he was so bad they sent him to the Minors. They need a bounce back from him. I'll give them this...their pitching staff isn't that bad. And their bullpen got better with the addition of Fernando Rodney, who was so good as the closer in San Diego that he made the All-Star team before becoming completely useless as a setup guy in Miami. The Diamondbacks are his fifth team in three years, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him make it six and get traded at the deadline again. I can also see the Diamondbacks surprising us all and remaining relevant enough to be buyers at the deadline.
Projected Lineup: A.J. Pollock-CF, Chris Owings-SS, Paul Goldschmidt-1B, Jake Lamb-3B, Yasmany Tomas-LF, Brandon Drury-2B, David Peralta-RF, Jeff Mathis-C
Projected Rotation: Zack Greinke, Taijuan Walker, Robbie Ray, Shelby Miller, Patrick Corbin
Closer: Fernando Rodney
Projected Record: 75-87
5. San Diego Padres: San Diego saw better baseball in the World Baseball Classic than it will at any point during the Padres' season. This team isn't good, and there's no chance they're going to contend in 2017. Not in a division that includes the Dodgers and Giants. There isn't a single player on the Padres' roster worth getting excited about. Sure, they've got a couple names you recognize, but this team isn't going anywhere (which, unlike their football-playing counterparts, I mean both literally and figuratively). Tony Gwynn and Trevor Hoffman aren't walking through the door anytime soon, either. In fact, now that the All-Star Game is over, the thing Padres fans can get the most excited about is Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction in 2018. On the field, though, they're going to be tough to watch. They know it, too. There are a lot of rookies and second-year players who are going to get a lot of playing time on this team. They do have some veterans, though. In fact, they've added two more in former Angels Erick Aybar and Jered Weaver. Weaver is the interesting one. Let's see how he adjusts to the National League after spending his entire career until now in Anaheim (I thought he'd be an Angel forever). He did win 18 games just three years ago, so if he gets his form back, that's a nice arm to have. I'm curious as to why Jhoulys Chacin is listed as their No. 1 starter and Weaver's only No. 4, but it doesn't much matter. Just like it really doesn't matter who they decide on for a closer. Either way, tt's going to be a long summer in San Diego. At least the weather's nice.
Projected Lineup: Manuel Margot-CF, Erick Aybar-SS, Wil Myers-1B, Travis Jankowski-LF, Ryan Schimpf-3B, Hunter Renfroe-RF, Yangervis Solarte-2B, Austin Hedges-C
Projected Rotation: Jhoulys Chacin, Clayton Richard, Trevor Cahill, Jered Weaver, Luis Perdomo
Closer: Brandon Maurer
Projected Record: 67-95
So, I've got the National League playoff field looking awfully similar to what it was last season. All three division winners are the same, and you're just replacing the Mets with the Cardinals in the Wild Card Game. And we all know how the NL Wild Card Game goes. Madison Bumgarner pitches a three-hitter and the Giants advance. I have them playing a fun series with the rival Dodgers, while the Nationals and Cubs square off in the other Division Series. I'll take LA and Washington to advance, with the Dodgers finally getting over the hump and back to the World Series for the first time in 29 years.
As I previously revealed, my AL pennant winner is Boston, giving us a World Series matchup between two of Baseball's marquee franchises. I just think the Dodgers are too loaded, though. If the 2015 NLCS was the learning experience the Cubs brought into last season, I see the Dodgers using the 2016 NLCS as a similar springboard. They're getting tired of hearing about their playoff failures. And the only way to shut people up is to win. Which is exactly what I see them doing. In six games. They win it for Vin in their first season without him since 1950.
But before we put our Caps On, it's time to finish up the baseball preview. As usual, we end with Part VI, the NL West. And as usual, the Dodgers are the clear favorites in the NL West. I really don't see that changing anytime soon. This team is loaded, and they have a singular mission of winning the World Series. Until that happens, expect to see them losing in the playoffs.
The Giants are probably the only team in the NL West that can even give the Dodgers any sort of a challenge. The Rockies and Diamondbacks both have some quality pieces, but nowhere near enough of them. And Padres are just a mess. San Diego's only pro team enters about year 12 of its 10-year rebuilding plan. They're more likely to challenge for 100 losses than for the NL West title.
1. Los Angeles Dodgers: It all starts with Clayton Kershaw and goes from there. And he actually won't have to bear the entire pitching burden himself this season, as Hyun-Jin Ryu and Brandon McCarthy both return from the injuries that resulted in their respective 2016s being lost seasons. Their rotation isn't strong as the Cubs (which is one the reasons Chicago beat them in the NLCS). But they've long needed to give Kershaw some help, and this year it looks like they finally might be able to. They also benefitted greatly from re-signing their two biggest free agents. They wouldn't have been able to replace Kenley Jansen and Justin Turner with anyone near the same caliber. And I've got an idea for another free agent the Dodgers should sign. Angel Pagan. How perfectly would he fit in as their left fielder? Andre Ethier is nothing more than a pinch hitter at this point, and I still have no idea who Andrew Toles is. Once other teams start scouting him, I think he's really going to struggle. Hopefully the struggles are over for the Dodgers' other two outfielders--Joc Pederson and Yasiel Puig. If they can get back to the same type of numbers they put up as rookies, this lineup becomes even more formidable. Logan Forsythe is a clear upgrade at second base, and he can even move over to short if Corey Seager is out for an extended period. Unless something drastic happens, expect to see this team in October once again. And this year I think they might be in for an extended stay.
Projected Lineup: Logan Forsythe-SS, Chase Utley-2B, Adrian Gonzalez-1B, Justin Turner-3B, Yasmani Grandal-C, Joc Pederson-CF, Yasiel Puig-RF, Andrew Toles-LF (Corey Seager)
Projected Rotation: Clayton Kershaw, Kenta Maeda, Brandon McCarthy, Rich Hill, Hyun-Jin Ryu
Closer: Kenley Jansen
Projected Record: 96-66
2. San Francisco Giants: Their even-year magic finally wore off. Now can they get over their odd-year negative karma? I really don't see a reason why not. Because the Giants are one of the best teams in the National League, and if anyone is going to give the Dodgers a run for the division title, it'll be them. All-Stars all over the field, starting with Madison Bumgarner, and now they've got an All-Star at the end of games, too. Mark Melancon is a clear upgrade at closer over whoever they had last season. The All-Stars extend to the position players, and it's much more than just WBC champions Buster Posey and Brandon Crawford. Posey, Hunter Pence and Brandon Belt are one of the best 3-4-5 combos out there, and they're really strong at the top with Denard Span and Joe Panik. I found it a little curious that they didn't even make an attempt to re-sign Angel Pagan, but they've got confidence in Jarrett Parker. But, if Parker doesn't perform or Pagan signs with the Dodgers and does, they may come to regret it. They also aren't incredibly deep, so any injury is something to worry about. Especially in the rotation, which is much more than just Bumgarner. Remember, Matt Cain used to be this team's ace, and he's now their No. 5 starter. If they can stay healthy, though, the Giants are a serious contender not just in the NL West, but in the entire National League.
Projected Lineup: Denard Span-CF, Joe Panik-2B, Buster Posey-C, Hunter Pence-RF, Brandon Belt-1B, Jarrett Parker-LF, Eduardo Nunez-3B, Brandon Crawford-SS
Projected Rotation: Madison Bumgarner, Johnny Cueto, Matt Moore, Jeff Samardzija, Matt Cain
Closer: Mark Melancon
Projected Record: 91-71
3. Colorado Rockies: Slowly but surely, we're finding out the names of the players on the Colorado Rockies. We already knew about Carlos Gonzalez, and that was Rockies third baseman Nolan Arenado striking out in the middle of the USA lineup during the WBC. As it turns out, he's led the NL in RBIs in each of the last two years. Although, seeing as the Rockies have been in existence for 25 years and that's been their M.O. the entire time, that shouldn't really surprise anybody. And it doesn't seem likely to change this year. They're going to hit a lot of homers and score a lot of runs in that thin mountain air. Will they get the pitching to back it up though? Probably not. Former Royal Greg Holland returns from Tommy John surgery as the Rockies' new closer, but how many save opportunities is he going to get? It's doesn't seem like it'll be a lot. I get it. Pitching's never going to be their strength. They know that, too. So they're once again going to rely on beating teams 9-7. Fortunately they've got the offense and the ballpark to do that. They won't win enough games to be contenders, but they're definitely capable of threatening the .500 mark. Third place seems like a lock for this team. They're just so much better than both the Diamondbacks and Padres.
Projected Lineup: Gerardo Parra-LF, DJ LeMahieu-2B, Nolan Arenado-3B, Carlos Gonzalez-RF, Mark Reynolds-1B, Trevor Story-SS, Charlie Blackmon-CF, Tony Wolters-C
Projected Rotation: Jon Gray, Tyler Anderson, Tyler Chatwood, Antonio Senzatela, Kyle Freeland
Closer: Greg Holland
Projected Record: 80-82
4. Arizona Diamondbacks: I have one question for all those morons that were clamoring for Paul Goldschmidt to play during the World Baseball Classic. Did you want him to sit Eric Hosmer? Can you really tell me Goldschmidt, who was the American DH until Giancarlo seized the role, deserved to start over a guy who was on base the entire tournament?! Anyway, I digress. There are other players on the Diamondbacks not named Goldschmidt, but not enough to make them relevant. Even if Yasmany Tomas and A.J. Pollock are entertaining to watch. If they have any chance in the NL West, it'll come down to Zack Greinke and the pitching staff. They broke the bank going after Greinke, but he went just 13-7 with a 4.37 ERA during his first season in the desert. Keep in mind, as Arizona's No. 1, he's pitching against Kershaw and Bumgarner on a regular basis, and he isn't as good as either one of them. Not that any team in their right mind wouldn't take Greinke. Shelby Miller was their other big get last offseason, and he was so bad they sent him to the Minors. They need a bounce back from him. I'll give them this...their pitching staff isn't that bad. And their bullpen got better with the addition of Fernando Rodney, who was so good as the closer in San Diego that he made the All-Star team before becoming completely useless as a setup guy in Miami. The Diamondbacks are his fifth team in three years, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him make it six and get traded at the deadline again. I can also see the Diamondbacks surprising us all and remaining relevant enough to be buyers at the deadline.
Projected Lineup: A.J. Pollock-CF, Chris Owings-SS, Paul Goldschmidt-1B, Jake Lamb-3B, Yasmany Tomas-LF, Brandon Drury-2B, David Peralta-RF, Jeff Mathis-C
Projected Rotation: Zack Greinke, Taijuan Walker, Robbie Ray, Shelby Miller, Patrick Corbin
Closer: Fernando Rodney
Projected Record: 75-87
5. San Diego Padres: San Diego saw better baseball in the World Baseball Classic than it will at any point during the Padres' season. This team isn't good, and there's no chance they're going to contend in 2017. Not in a division that includes the Dodgers and Giants. There isn't a single player on the Padres' roster worth getting excited about. Sure, they've got a couple names you recognize, but this team isn't going anywhere (which, unlike their football-playing counterparts, I mean both literally and figuratively). Tony Gwynn and Trevor Hoffman aren't walking through the door anytime soon, either. In fact, now that the All-Star Game is over, the thing Padres fans can get the most excited about is Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction in 2018. On the field, though, they're going to be tough to watch. They know it, too. There are a lot of rookies and second-year players who are going to get a lot of playing time on this team. They do have some veterans, though. In fact, they've added two more in former Angels Erick Aybar and Jered Weaver. Weaver is the interesting one. Let's see how he adjusts to the National League after spending his entire career until now in Anaheim (I thought he'd be an Angel forever). He did win 18 games just three years ago, so if he gets his form back, that's a nice arm to have. I'm curious as to why Jhoulys Chacin is listed as their No. 1 starter and Weaver's only No. 4, but it doesn't much matter. Just like it really doesn't matter who they decide on for a closer. Either way, tt's going to be a long summer in San Diego. At least the weather's nice.
Projected Lineup: Manuel Margot-CF, Erick Aybar-SS, Wil Myers-1B, Travis Jankowski-LF, Ryan Schimpf-3B, Hunter Renfroe-RF, Yangervis Solarte-2B, Austin Hedges-C
Projected Rotation: Jhoulys Chacin, Clayton Richard, Trevor Cahill, Jered Weaver, Luis Perdomo
Closer: Brandon Maurer
Projected Record: 67-95
So, I've got the National League playoff field looking awfully similar to what it was last season. All three division winners are the same, and you're just replacing the Mets with the Cardinals in the Wild Card Game. And we all know how the NL Wild Card Game goes. Madison Bumgarner pitches a three-hitter and the Giants advance. I have them playing a fun series with the rival Dodgers, while the Nationals and Cubs square off in the other Division Series. I'll take LA and Washington to advance, with the Dodgers finally getting over the hump and back to the World Series for the first time in 29 years.
As I previously revealed, my AL pennant winner is Boston, giving us a World Series matchup between two of Baseball's marquee franchises. I just think the Dodgers are too loaded, though. If the 2015 NLCS was the learning experience the Cubs brought into last season, I see the Dodgers using the 2016 NLCS as a similar springboard. They're getting tired of hearing about their playoff failures. And the only way to shut people up is to win. Which is exactly what I see them doing. In six games. They win it for Vin in their first season without him since 1950.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)